What’s Important to You? the Places we Live in... where we Work... where we go Shopping... the Spaces we Play in... our Quality of Life... how we Travel... Saving Energy... the Environment we Enjoy around us...
Planning the Future of South Tyneside Shaping Our Future: The New Development Plan for Your Borough
Local Plan Key Issues and Options – Consultation Results
April 2013 [Pre-Sustainability Appraisal Draft Report]
Forward Planning Team Development Services South Tyneside Council, Town Hall and Civic Offices, Westoe Road, South Shields, Tyne & Wear NE33 2RL
Telephone: (0191) 424 7688 E-mail: [email protected] Visit: www.southtyneside.info/localplan
Contents Page 1 What is Planning? What is the Development Plan? 1
2 Issues and Options Consultation 2
3 Population, Housing and Economic Growth 5 4 Regeneration and Shopping Centres 11 5 Where should Development Happen? Brownfield and Greenfield Land and the Green Belt 14 6 Health, Recreation and Quality of Life 19 7 Sustainability and Transport 21
8 Neighbourhood Planning 27
Annex A: Equality Monitoring 29 Annex B: Getting Involved in Future Consultation 30 Annex C: Schedule of Written Response Comments 31
KEY elements of the current planning situation:
Scale: 2 miles
1. What is Planning? What is the Development Plan?
Shaping our future is about planning for positive growth through sustainable development and to secure a sustainable future for everyone. In its place-making role, planning can be seen as something of a jigsaw puzzle of considering the options and alternatives for what goes where in seeking to get the right development in the right place at the right time, and also for the right cost too.
Our local development plan is key to achieving these objectives. The development plan sets the spatial policies, guidance, land use designations and site allocations against which all planning applications and development proposals in the borough are assessed. It sets the formal legal framework for sustainable development patterns and lays the foundations for enabling regeneration and economic growth, whilst protecting our most valuable built and natural environmental assets.
Our new Local Plan will set out how South Tyneside will develop and grow over the next 15-20 years. It will determine the opportunities for job creation and how many new homes can be built, identifying where development may take place while protecting the environments and facilities that are most important.
South Tyneside Council was the first local authority in the North East, and one of the first nationally, both to achieve adoption of its Local Development Framework (LDF) Core Strategy back in 2007, and then also to complete our full suite of statutory LDF development plan documents in April 2012. Yet planning does not stand still, and we are undertaking an early review of our LDF in the form of a new-style Local Plan, building upon the Government’s planning reforms through the Localism Act 2011 (November 2011) and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, March 2012), including the latter’s ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’. Government also finally revoked in April 2013 the former North East of England Plan: Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 (July 2008) which had previously formed the upper tier of the borough’s statutory development plan above the council’s Local Development Framework.
South Tyneside Partnership’s new Sustainable Community Strategy, the South Tyneside Vision 2011-31 has also established a fresh new vision for the borough, together with a set of long-term People and Place-based objectives and strategic outcomes. We want South Tyneside to look and feel like a great place to be, to improve the borough’s image through ambitious physical transformation and environmental enhancement in regenerating our towns, homes and communities in order to help us create jobs and greater opportunities to bring health, wealth and prosperity to local communities and business. Our statutory development plan is essentially the means for taking forward the spatial and land use aspects of this growth vision. This vision, alongside national planning policy and guidance and our evidence base, will shape the future direction of our new Local Plan.
South Tyneside will be an outstanding place to live, invest and bring up families
People Place Better education and skills A regenerated South Tyneside with increased business and jobs Less people in poverty Better transport Protect children and vulnerable adults Better housing and neighbourhoods Stable and independent families A clean and green environment Healthier people Less crime and safer communities
1
2. Issues and Options Consultation
One of the first stages in preparing our new Local Plan was to invite the public to give their views and preferences on a range of key issues and options. Getting the views of local residents and businesses, as well as interested community organisations, landowners, developers and agents on these challenging issues, choices and their various implications will help to shape our forthcoming draft Local Plan, alongside our other evidence base studies.
Public consultation on the key issues and options took place over a 7-week period between Monday 25 February - Friday 12 April 2013. The consultation, questionnaires and a series of drop-in exhibition events were widely advertised through a press release in the local Shields Gazette newspaper, articles in our Local Plan e-Newsletter (February 2013) and in the council’s South Tyneside newsletter to all residents (March 2013), as well as via the council’s website homepage and Planning pages, and some 1,000 direct consultee letters and e-mails. Posters were also put up in council offices and libraries (with flyer leaflets and printed copies of the questionnaires), as well as at local housing offices, leisure and community centres, major supermarkets, colleges, health centres and surgeries.
Two alternative questionnaires were produced, a quick 4-page leaflet questionnaire plus a more detailed questionnaire delving further into the issues. Both were made available at events and to download or fill in electronically on the council’s website, together with a series of Frequently Asked Questions. The exhibition event displays also incorporated an interactive ‘taster snapshot’ element to further engage people, enabling the public to ‘vote’ by placing dots against their most favoured options.
2
Consultation drop-in events were held at the following venues (with dates/times), which also partially coincided with the school holidays period around the Easter weekend (29 March- 1 April 2013) thus further widening opportunities for people to attend events out of working hours: South Tyneside ‘Meet the Buyer’ Business Procurement event, Thursday 28 February 8:30am-1pm South Shields Town Hall Asda superstore, South Shields Tuesday 19 March 5pm-7pm Morrisons superstore, Jarrow Thursday 21 March 5pm-7pm Hebburn Library Saturday 23 March 9:30am-12pm South Shields Central Library Saturday 23 March 1pm-4pm Asda superstore, Boldon Colliery Thursday 28 March 5pm-7pm National Trust Easter Shindig family fun day, Monday 1 April 12pm-3pm Souter Lighthouse, Whitburn Temple Park Leisure Centre, South Shields Thursday 4 April 3pm-6pm Cleadon Park Library, South Shields Saturday 6 April 9:30am-12pm Jarrow Library Saturday 6 April 1pm-4pm South Tyneside Council Customer Service Centre, Monday 8 April - Friday 12 April South Shields Town Hall
Over 500 people attended the events. The ‘Meet the Buyer’ business event was attended by 103 people representing local businesses, while the series of more publicly advertised events drew interest from over 400 local residents and business people from across the borough and beyond. 107 of those attending the events (including 46 at the business event) engaged with the public exhibition displays by placing dots on the boards to ‘vote’ for their most favoured options – some of those may have also then filled in a questionnaire as well, so these results have been kept separate in the results analysis rather than added together to avoid any potential double-counting.
Responses were received from over 100 people. The consultation questionnaires were completed by 98 respondents (60 or 61% filling them in electronically online), with 60 responding through the quick questionnaire (29 or 48% completing it online) and a further 38 responding through the more detailed questionnaire (31 or 82% filling it online) – one person completed both questionnaires.
Additionally, 14 supplementary written responses were received by e- mail or letter (7 of whom also filled in a questionnaire), one of which came from a local residents’ group concerned about any potential for development in the Green Belt. The others came from a range of national/ regional organisations and agencies, consultants/agents and developers, providing further detailed comments and advice from their specialist viewpoints or seeking to promote potential development sites (including some within the Green Belt). 3
Almost all of those responding to the quick questionnaire and almost half of those who filled in the more detailed questionnaire were responding as local residents, with the latter version being more favoured by local landowners, developers, consultants and other organisations. This and further equality monitoring information are set out at Annex A of this report, with people’s preferences for how they would prefer to get involved in future consultation stages set out at Annex B.
The key findings from the issues and options consultation questionnaires and events are presented in the following sections of this report, with a full schedule of written comments received appended at Annex C. Under each key issue, the graphs illustrate and compare the relative degree of priority and importance the public gave to the different options and alternatives presented.
It is evident from the analysis of all the responses received that the most publicly favoured issues and options focus upon matters of: providing more employment opportunities; focusing development on previously-developed ‘brownfield’ sites wherever possible before building on previously-undeveloped ‘greenfield’ sites (including those within the Green Belt); restricting the numbers of hot food takeaways; providing sufficient recreational open spaces to meet future needs; diversifying and making best use of existing open spaces; ensuring new buildings are built to the highest design and energy efficiency standards; protecting, conserving and enhancing local historic and cultural heritage features, including enabling the viable restoration of historic buildings through more flexible requirements; maximising the use of renewable energy resources as long as any adverse impacts on the landscape are minimised; improving sustainable travel opportunities and public transport accessibility, particularly via new Metro routes; encouraging children to travel to school by walking, cycling and public transport rather than by car. Other options rated as being of high importance or priority related to minimising building on land in known flood risk areas, and building more affordable housing (for both private home ownership and social-renting).
The least favoured options were those to do with: increasing housing densities to fit more homes onto development sites; allowing for more bookmakers, large supermarkets and hot food takeaways in our shopping centres; allowing the development of some previously-undeveloped ‘greenfield’ sites in the short-term until the redevelopment of previously-developed ‘brownfield’ sites becomes more economically viable; any potential for development in the Green Belt (particularly any separate new settlements); that sufficiently providing for the borough’s future housing and employment land requirements should outweigh any adverse impacts of developing in the Green Belt.
A complementary Sustainability Appraisal (incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment) report assessing the social, environmental and economic implications of each of the issues and options is published separately to this document. Alongside our other evidence base studies and requirements, this will further inform the decision- making for the strategy and policies in the Local Plan, and may also mean that some of the publicly-preferred options identified through this issues and options consultation stage are ultimately not the most sustainable options or would not be sufficiently compatible with the council’s overarching Shaping Our Future vision or the Government’s requirements in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and associated planning legislation.
4
3. Population, Housing and Economic Growth
Detailed Question 1: Providing for our Growing Population
The numbers of people living in the borough can affect the viability of services such as shops, schools, leisure and community facilities. Just over 148,000 people currently live in South Tyneside, but after many years of a declining population, the number of people expected to be living in South Tyneside is now forecast to grow again over the next 20-25 years, as it is in the country as a whole.
Average household sizes in all parts of the country are forecast to continue to get smaller, due to an increasing number of people living singly or in couples as opposed to living in large families, as well as an increasing elderly population as people live longer. This means we will need more homes in South Tyneside to accommodate both the growing number of local residents and also the increasing number of households.
The public’s preferences for the suggested options were as follows:
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
A. South Tyneside should plan to provide sufficient homes and job opportunities to meet the needs of our full forecast future 6% 14% 9% 14% 54% population
B. We shouldn’t fully provide for our forecast population growth, even if that means some current residents and some of 37% 20% 14% 17% 9% our future children may have to move out of the borough to find somewhere to live
C. More housing and employment opportunities should be provided for those who wish to stay living here, reducing the 3%6% 9% 26% 54% desire or need for people to leave and move to live elsewhere in the North East region, wider UK or abroad
D. We should actively try to attract more people to move to live in South Tyneside and grow the borough’s resident population 28% 17% 7% 14% 28% as much as possible, regardless of how much land might need to be developed to provide for them
Strongly disagree Tend to disagree Don't know Neither agree nor disagree Tend to agree Agree strongly
More than two thirds of respondents to the detailed questionnaire felt that we should look to plan for our full forecast housing and employment land requirements, particularly in terms of enabling residents to stay living in South Tyneside rather than having to move out of the borough to live elsewhere. Conversely, over half of respondents felt we shouldn’t provide fully for our forecast full population growth.
However, views were fairly evenly balanced as regards seeking to attract more people to move to live in the borough, due to the consequent pressures on land available for development.
5
Exhibition Display Question 1: More People...More Jobs...More Homes...
The number of people living in South Tyneside is predicted to grow over the next 20-25 years. This means we need more homes and jobs to support this growth. If we don’t provide enough land for our needs, it is likely that some of our residents may need to leave South Tyneside to find work or somewhere to live. Our Neighbouring authorities are also planning for growth and providing for more homes and jobs.
Quick Question 1: Housing and Jobs (part 1, Options A-C)
Just over 148,000 people currently live in South Tyneside, but after many years of a declining population the number of people living in the borough is forecast to grow again. People are also living longer so there will be a greater proportion of elderly people, whilst household sizes are getting smaller (smaller families and more people living alone). Some 10,000 residents are presently unemployed in South Tyneside, putting further pressure on housing affordability too. We therefore need to provide more homes and job opportunities. Our present development plan provides for building nearly 5,000 new homes over the next 10-15 years to add to our current 70,000 housing stock, but we may actually need up to 12,000 new homes (+15%) over the next 20-25 years. We want to increase employment levels too and reduce the need for residents to commute out of the borough for work. These needs for new homes and jobs mean we will have to identify more land to be developed. If we do not encourage enough development, more people will be forced to leave the borough to find somewhere to live and work, which could in turn make it difficult to sustain important community facilities such as schools, shops and leisure centres within the Borough. The level of growth we wish to achieve will determine the amount of land required for development.
To compete with our neighbours we also need to provide for growth. We think we will need between 10- 12,000 new homes and 7-14,000 new jobs. How many new homes and jobs do you think we should provide?
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
A. High growth option (up to 12,000 new homes and 14,000 34% new jobs) – this would provide for all of our predicted population growth 33%
B. Medium growth option (up to 10,000 new homes and 11,000 33% new jobs) – this would provide for most of our predicted population growth 44%
C. Lower growth option (up to 6,000 new homes and 7,000 new 6% jobs) – this would provide for a small amount of population growth 24%
Exhibition Events Quick Questionnaire
Of those who responded to the quick questionnaire and via the exhibition displays, the majority favoured a medium- to-high growth approach over the low growth option, with views being fairly equal between providing for our full or most of our growth requirements but with slightly more on the whole preferring the medium growth option. The lower growth option was the least favoured in terms of providing for sufficient homes and job opportunities for our forecast future population.
6
Detailed Question 2: Housing our Growing Population
The need for more homes to house our growing population and household numbers, as well as the demand for homes that are more affordable or better suited to people’s changing needs and with gardens and open spaces around them, will place increasing pressures on the land we have available for building more homes. Current planning permissions in the borough will provide for just over 1,000 new homes, while our current development plan housing allocations would provide for almost a further 4,000 new homes over the next 10-15 years.
To meet our population’s future housing needs, the latest population and household growth projections suggest we may need to build around 10,000-12,000 extra new homes in the borough over the next 20-25 years to add to our current 70,000 housing stock (ie. a 15% increase). While we encourage owners to bring the small proportion of vacant residential properties (about 3.5% of all housing) back into liveable use, this level of demand would still mean doubling our typical average annual housebuilding rates in South Tyneside.
The public’s preferences for the suggested options were as follows:
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
A. South Tyneside should identify and allocate sufficient additional land to provide for our full future housing needs (ie. 10,000-12,000 17% 14% 9% 20% 37% extra new homes, which would mean 5,000-7,000 more homes than we’ve already planned for)
B. Increasing South Tyneside’s housebuilding rates to the levels necessary to provide for our full future housing needs is not 26% 14% 17% 26% 14% realistically achievable, whatever the prevailing economic conditions
C. We should plan to provide additional new homes at an increased but more realistic and deliverable rate of housebuilding, even if this 14% 17% 6% 40% 17% means not enough new homes are built to meet our full forecast needs
D. Average housing densities on development sites should be increased (ie. fit in more homes by way of more flats and apartments 20% 26% 14% 23% 14% rather than houses and bungalows) to reduce the amount of land needed to meet our future housing requirements
E. The numbers of lower density older persons bungalows should be increased to cater for the forecast increasing elderly proportion of 6% 14% 17% 40% 20% our population, even if this means more land is required to meet our housing needs
F. We should create more opportunities for people to build their own homes, either as individual self-build projects or as part of community 6% 9% 27% 41% 15% self-build schemes (ie. groups of people getting together to help build each others’ homes whilst learning building skills), by allocating specific sites or requiring developers to provide serviced plots within larger housing Strongly disagree Tend to disagree Don't know Neither agree nor disagree developments Tend to agree Agree strongly
Again, over half of respondents to the detailed questionnaire felt that we should seek to provide for the full needs of our forecast future population. Views were fairly balanced as to the realistic ability of the housebuilding sector to increase build rates to the levels likely to be necessary to provide enough homes for our future population and households, although slightly more than half of respondents felt that we should plan to provide for new homes at a higher but realistic rate of housebuilding. 7
Quick Question 1: Housing and Jobs (part 2, Options D-F)
Do you agree with these possible options?
-60% -50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
D. Housing densities should be increased to fit more homes -59% 41% on development sites
E. More lower density bungalows should be built to cater for -20% 80% more elderly people
F. More opportunities should be created for people to self- -34% 66% build their own homes
Quick Questionnaire - No Quick Questionnaire - Yes
However, slightly more respondents to both questionnaires disagreed than agreed with seeking to encourage higher housing densities on development sites to fit in more homes and reduce the amount of land required for new housing. More than half of respondents felt that there was a need to build more bungalows for the elderly (with more than three-quarters of respondents to the quick questionnaire in favour of this option), regardless of whether such lower density housing would mean more land being required to meet the housing needs of our future population.
There was also a reasonably high level of support from respondents to both questionnaires for providing more opportunities for people to build their own homes, either through individual self-build developments or as part of wider community self-build projects.
Exhibition Display Question 2: How are we going to live?...
The way we live is changing. Smaller households and an ageing population means we need to provide the right types of housing to meet everyone's needs.
What type of home do you think you will need in the future? Please tell what type of housing opportunities do we need to provide for?
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
A. 1-bedroom accommodation 20%
B. Family home 32%
C. Affordable Housing 50%
D. Self-build housing plot 7%
E. Bungalow 20%
F. Sheltered/Assisted accommodation 19%
Exhibition Events
Half of those engaging with the exhibitions considered there to be a need for more affordable housing (albeit this view no doubt includes lower prices for buying their own homes in the private sector, rather than just the social- rented and intermediate housing sectors that the ‘affordable housing’ definition technically only applies to). About a third of respondents felt the main needs were for more family housing. 8
Exhibition Display Question 3: Where are we going to work?...... plus Quick Question 1: Housing and Jobs (part 2, Option G)
There are currently about 10,000 unemployed people living in South Tyneside, and nearly a third of those are young people. We want South Tyneside to be a place for businesses to locate and grow, providing jobs for local people. By allocating new areas for offices, factories and warehouses we can help to provide for new job opportunities.
Please tell us if you agree with these proposals? -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
A. Should we plan to create more opportunities through large -12% 52% sites to attract big multi-national businesses to locate in South -17% Tyneside? 83%
-1% B. Should we provide for more jobs in the future so less residents 78% have to work outside the borough, and more workers travel in?
Exhibition Events - No Exhibition Events - Yes Quick Questionnaire - No Quick Questionnaire - Yes
There was a fairly high level of support from respondents to the quick questionnaire and exhibition displays for providing more job opportunities in the borough for residents, including for creating more suitable site opportunities to attract big multi-national businesses to locate in the borough.
Detailed Question 3: Providing for Economic Growth and Employment Opportunities
There are currently about 10,000 unemployed people living in the borough, representing nearly 10% of working-age residents and including about a third of young people. We want South Tyneside to be a place of choice for businesses to locate and grow, providing more employment and training opportunities both for our residents and for those of neighbouring areas. We also want to increase our employment levels up to the national average rate to help ensure we don’t get left behind by the growth plans of neighbouring areas like the cities of Newcastle and Sunderland, as well as reducing the need for residents to have to commute out of the borough for work.
As the economy recovers we need to ensure we have a sufficient range of suitable premises and developable land opportunities for businesses to set up and create new jobs as quickly as possible, while ensuring that these are in the sorts of sustainable and accessible locations that will attract new businesses into the borough. Re-using existing vacant premises and underused or vacant industrial sites will contribute to some of our future needs, but to achieve the desired economic growth with an increase in job opportunities for residents we will also need to identify more land for economic development.
9
The public’s preferences for the suggested options were as follows:
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
A. South Tyneside should plan to provide sufficient land and premises to meet our full aspirational economic growth requirements (7,000- 11% 9% 6% 26% 46% 14,000 new jobs over the next 20-25 years)
B. We should plan to provide sufficient employment opportunities for our future forecast working-age population, while allowing for 3%0% 3% 37% 51% reasonable levels of commuting to and from neighbouring areas like Newcastle, Gateshead and Sunderland
C. We should plan to create major economic development and employment opportunities, providing the types and sizes of sites and 3% 12% 9% 32% 41% premises that would attract big new multi-national businesses to locate in the borough
D. The change of use of existing offices and industrial units and sites to alternative uses (eg. for housing) should only be allowed where 0%9% 15% 38% 35% those sites and premises have become unviable for ongoing business use or the alternative use would bring benefits that outweigh the loss of business space Strongly disagree Tend to disagree Don't know Neither agree nor disagree Tend to agree Agree strongly
Again, about three quarters of respondents to the detailed questionnaire were in favour of providing for our full employment land requirements, together with providing suitable sites and premises to attract big multi-national businesses to locate in the borough. The vast majority supported providing sufficient job opportunities for our future working-age population, while allowing for some continued out-commuting to neighbouring districts.
About three-quarters of respondents were also in favour of only allowing the change of use of existing offices and industrial units when they have become unviable for continued business uses, or where the benefits of the alternative uses would outweigh their loss.
10
4. Regeneration and Shopping Centres
Exhibition Display Question 4: What will our Town Centres be like?...
We have a range of shops and facilities in South Shields, Jarrow and Hebburn, as well as our more local centres. However, we need to improve these areas and attract new shops and businesses to fill our empty units.
Please tell us what you think we need more of in our shopping areas?
-60% -50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
A. Supermarkets -51% 8%
B. Smaller local food/drink shops -7% 58%
C. Housing -15% 47%
D. Fashion shops -7% 38%
E. DIY / Furniture -12% 28%
F. Cafes/Restaurants -9% 50%
G. Pubs / Bars -33% 18%
H. Hot Food Takeaways -42% 5%
I. Bookmakers -54% 1%
Exhibition Events - No Exhibition Events - Yes
Quick Question 2: Regenerating our Shopping Centres
Our town centres are the focal points for shopping and leisure facilities and many other community activities, as well as being key centres of employment. However, we want to make them better and need to ensure they are well- placed to take advantage of growth opportunities as the country recovers from the economic recession.
We also know people need access to good quality services and facilities in their local neighbourhood areas too, including schools, doctors’ surgeries, shops, parks and public transport connections.
11
Do you agree with these possible options?
-40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
A. More housing should be introduced into our town centres by re-using upper floors of shops and -27% 73% redeveloping other sites
B. Cafes, restaurants, bookmakers and other businesses should be allowed to re-use vacant shop units in our -28% 72% high streets
C. The numbers of cafes, restaurants and hot food takeaways should be restricted in our local -34% 66% neighbourhood shopping centres
Quick Questionnaire - No Quick Questionnaire - Yes
Nearly three-quarters of respondents to the quick questionnaire and the vast majority of those responding to the detailed questionnaire (see below, none against) were in favour of introducing more housing into our town centres through the use of upper floors and redeveloping sites. Almost half of those who engaged with the exhibition displays were also supportive of seeing more housing in our main shopping centres.
About two-thirds of respondents to the detailed questionnaire (see below) were supportive of continuing to focus retailing and major leisure provision in South Shields town centre as the borough’s main shopping centre and leisure destination most able to compete with other centres in the region to attract national stores. Two-thirds of respondents were also in favour of discouraging large supermarkets, retail warehouses and commercial leisure attractions from setting up in out-of-centre locations, preferring them to be located more accessibly within or on the edge of our main centres to help support the vitality and viability of established shopping centres.
About three-quarters of respondents to both questionnaires were also supportive of allowing for more flexibility to enable vacant shop units in our main shopping streets to be brought back into viable use for alternative non-shop uses such as cafes, restaurants and other businesses. This viewpoint was also supported by those who engaged with the exhibition displays who were generally in favour of seeing more cafes and restaurants as well as smaller local food and drink shops and fashion shops in our main shopping centres, with some support also for seeing more DIY and furniture stores. However, exhibition event attendees showed a clear preference for smaller local food and drink shops as opposed to large new supermarkets. They were also very much against seeing more bookmakers and hot food takeaways being able to open in our shopping centres, as well as more pubs and bars.
Two-thirds of respondents to the quick questionnaire, and just over half of respondents to the detailed questionnaire (see below), also supported restricting the numbers of cafes, restaurants and hot food outlets being able to open in our local neighbourhood shopping centres. The vast majority (over three-quarters) of respondents to the quick questionnaire and who engaged with the exhibition displays (see Quick Question 5 below, option C), and over half of respondents to the detailed questionnaire, were also in favour of restricting the ability of hot food outlets to open in close proximity to schools, so as to help discourage unhealthy eating opportunities for young people.
12
Detailed Question 4: Regenerating our Town and District Shopping Centres
Regenerating our town centres continues to be a top priority. Our town and district centres (ie. South Shields, Jarrow and Hebburn, plus smaller centres like Harton Nook and Boldon Colliery) provide the focal points for shopping and retailing, offices, leisure, social and community facilities and many other activities, as well as being key centres of employment. We want to ensure we maintain and enhance the vitality and viability of these centres, together with our supporting network of local neighbourhood shopping centres.
The economic recession combined with the growth in internet shopping has had a significant impact on shopping centres across the country, leading to the closure of many shops and businesses and resulting in many vacant units, thus harming the vitality and attractiveness of our high streets. We need to ensure our centres are well-placed to take advantage of growth opportunities when the country’s economic climate improves again. This means enabling physical regeneration in key locations and helping them adapt to offer the types of retail and business premises in a high quality environment that will attract businesses to re-establish and draw in shoppers and visitors to spend time and money and thus enhance their vitality, liveliness and economic viability.
The public’s preferences for the suggested options were as follows:
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
A. Main shopping and leisure provision should be focused in South Shields, as the borough’s principal town centre and therefore more 9% 13% 9% 34% 31% able to compete with Newcastle, Sunderland and the MetroCentre for trade and in attracting national chain stores
B. More flexibility should be allowed for the use of retail units in our main shopping high streets in South Shields, Jarrow and Hebburn 0%3% 13% 50% 28% town centres, eg. allowing for more cafes, restaurants, estate agents and other businesses to re-occupy vacant shop units and bring them back into use
C. We should plan for more people to live within our main town centres, by re-using underused upper floors of shops and 0% 13% 41% 44% regenerating some edge-of-centre areas to introduce significant amounts of new housing into our centres
D. Large supermarkets, retail warehouses and commercial leisure facilities should be discouraged in out-of-town locations where they 3%3% 25% 34% 31% would adversely impact on the liveliness and viability of our town and district shopping centres, and instead direct them to locate within or on the edges of our main centres
E. The numbers of cafes, restaurants and hot food takeaways should be restricted within our district and local neighbourhood shopping 0% 13% 23% 39% 19% centres to help maintain their liveliness and viability for shopping
F. The numbers of cafes, restaurants and hot food takeaways allowed to open in close proximity to schools should be restricted to 0% 16% 25% 28% 28% help encourage children to eat more healthily
Strongly disagree Tend to disagree Don't know Neither agree nor disagree Tend to agree Agree strongly
13
5. Where should Development Happen? Brownfield and Greenfield Land and the Green Belt
Exhibition Display Question 5: Where should development happen?...
We need to make the best use of our available land in South Tyneside. We have always tried to focus new buildings on ‘brownfield’ land (land which has already been built on in the past) rather than ‘greenfield’ land (areas of land which have not been built on before such as agricultural fields). Sometimes there can be problems which make it difficult or too expensive to develop brownfield sites. In these cases, an alternative option may be to build on low quality or underused greenfield sites.
Problems with Brownfield land which make development Types of Greenfield land which could be considered for difficult... development...
• the land is contaminated from previous industrial uses • low quality agricultural land • brownfield sites can become valuable wildlife habitats • disused or underused open spaces and playing fields • sites are unattractive or unsuitable to attract new business which are no longer needed or commercial developments • poor quality areas of open space
Quick Question 3: Where should Development Happen? Brownfield and Greenfield Land
Development usually takes place on ‘brownfield’ land (land that has previously been built on). However, there are times when ‘brownfield’ land is not attractive or suitable for development, or the costs of development may be prohibitively high. It may sometimes therefore be necessary to build on some ‘greenfield’ sites (such as open spaces, playing fields or agricultural land) that are of poor quality, underused or no longer required, to help provide the development necessary to meet our growth aspirations and needs.
Brownfield and Greenfield – Do you agree with these possible options? -80% -70% -60% -50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
-2% A. ‘Brownfield’ sites should ideally be redeveloped first, before 85% building on any ‘greenfield’ land -7% 93%
B. Some development should be allowed on ‘greenfield’ sites -21% 45% that are of poor quality and surplus to recreational -43% requirements 57%
C. Some development of ‘greenfield’ sites should be allowed, at -35% 16% least in the short term, until the regeneration of contaminated -71% ‘brownfield’ sites becomes financially possible 28%
Exhibition Events - No Exhibition Events - Yes Quick Questionnaire - No Quick Questionnaire - Yes
The vast majority of respondents to the quick questionnaire and who engaged at the exhibition events, together with nearly three-quarters of respondents to the detailed questionnaire (see below), were in favour of ideally seeing previously-developed ‘brownfield’ sites being redeveloped before any potential development of previously- undeveloped ‘greenfield’ land.
14
Nevertheless, slightly more than half of respondents to the quick questionnaire, and more than two-thirds of respondents to the detailed questionnaire (see below) and who engaged with the exhibition displays, generally supported allowing some development on ‘greenfield’ sites that are of poor quality or surplus to recreational needs. Almost half (and more than were against) of respondents to the detailed questionnaire (see below) supported allowing development on ‘greenfield’ sites where it was compensated by turning some ‘brownfield’ sites into new open spaces in areas currently relatively lacking open space provision.
Nearly three-quarters of respondents to the quick questionnaire and who engaged with the exhibition displays were nevertheless against allowing any development of ‘greenfield’ sites in the short term until the regeneration of (often contaminated) ‘brownfield’ sites becomes economically viable. However, about half of respondents to the detailed questionnaire (see below) were in favour of this option, possibly as the latter questionnaire was more used by developers and consultants.
Detailed Question 5: ‘Brownfield’ and ‘Greenfield’ Land
Making the best use of our land supply is a key part of enabling the growth and regeneration of South Tyneside. We generally aim to make use of vacant properties and unused previously-developed ‘brownfield’ sites before considering allowing new development on previously-undeveloped ‘greenfield’ sites such as open spaces, playing fields and agricultural land.
Some previously-developed ‘brownfield’ sites may, however, naturally vegetate and ‘regenerate’ to an extent that they develop a greater biodiversity and wildlife value than some lower quality ‘greenfield’ sites, whilst some ‘greenfield’ sites may not have much community or aesthetic value or serve much functional purpose. Additionally, some previous heavy industrial sites (eg. former shipyards) become so contaminated from their past uses that the high costs of decontaminating them to make them suitable for alternative new development means they are not economically and financially viable for development (at least at the present time). In other cases, they simply no longer offer the attributes desired by modern businesses to attract alternative commercial redevelopment.
The public’s preferences for the suggested options were as follows:
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
A. Previously-developed ‘brownfield’ sites should ideally be redeveloped before releasing any previously-undeveloped 15% 6% 9% 29% 41% ‘greenfield’ land for development, regardless of other considerations
B. Some alternative development should be allowed on lower quality ‘greenfield’ sites that do not perform much purposeful 9% 11% 11% 43% 26% function, or otherwise where there is sufficient alternative good quality open space to meet local recreational needs
C. Alternative development on ‘greenfield’ sites should only be allowed if some ‘brownfield’ land is turned into new open 15% 12% 24% 35% 12% spaces to compensate, and where the latter might help increase recreational provision in areas with a shortage of open spaces
D. Some development of ‘greenfield’ sites should be allowed, at least in the short term, to help meet our housing and employment needs until the economic situation improves 12% 27% 9% 21% 29% enough to enable viable decontamination and redevelopment of 'brownfield' sites
Strongly disagree Tend to disagree Don't know Neither agree nor disagree Tend to agree Agree strongly
15
Exhibition Display Question 6: What is the purpose of our Green Belt?...
The Green Belt is an important part of South Tyneside. Its primary role is to prevent the merging of South Tyneside with Sunderland and Gateshead, to protect the special character of our Urban Fringe villages (Whitburn, Cleadon and the Boldons) and to help focus new buildings in the urban area before the countryside.
Green Belt boundaries have changed in the past to help meet development needs – you may now live or work where once was Green Belt. If we can’t find enough land in the urban area for new homes and jobs we may have to review our Green Belt boundaries.
Quick Question 4: Green Belt Land
South Tyneside’s Green Belt covers about 2,408 hectares (5,950 acres), representing about a third of the borough’s land area. Its primary role is to prevent the merging of South Tyneside with Sunderland and Gateshead and to protect the special and separate characters of our Urban Fringe villages, while also encouraging the regeneration of our urban areas.
Green Belt areas help to manage urban growth in a sustainable and controlled way, but their boundaries can change (in very special circumstances) to help meet development needs – you may live or work in an area that was once Green Belt. Our Green Belt boundary was last reviewed in the 1990s, but a lot has changed since then and we may need to undertake another Green Belt review as part of this Local Plan to help provide enough housing and employment land.
If we need to release some Green Belt land to help provide enough homes and job opportunities for the residents of South Tyneside, which of these possible options do you most agree with?
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
A. Building on several small Green Belt sites in sustainable 40% locations around the edges of existing built-up areas 51%
B. Building on a few larger Green Belt sites in sustainable 28% locations around the edges of existing built-up areas 18%
C. Focusing development on one (or more) large Green Belt sites 11% where it would not adjoin existing settlements 31%
Exhibition Events Quick Questionnaire
More than half of respondents to the detailed questionnaire (see below) disagreed that the needs to meet the housing and employment needs of the borough’s future population should outweigh any potentially adverse impacts on the Green Belt. Their views were fairly balanced (albeit with slightly more against) in terms of releasing land from the Green Belt for development in sustainable locations that would not adversely impact on the general openness of the Green Belt to help meet the borough’s housing and economic growth requirements. Just over a third of respondents were in favour of only allowing for any Green Belt development releases where the Green Belt could be extended in compensation to cover additional ‘greenfield’ that would also contribute to its purposes and functions.
16
Nearly two-thirds of respondents to the detailed questionnaire (see below) would rather see all ‘brownfield’ sites in the urban area, together with any poor quality ‘greenfield’ sites, developed before any release of Green Belt land for development. However, nearly half of respondents were in favour (with less than a quarter against) of allowing for the development of ‘brownfield’ sites and lower quality ‘greenfield’ sites in the Green Belt that do not as positively contribute to the openness or primary purposes and functions of the Green Belt.
Around half of respondents to the quick questionnaire and who engaged with the exhibition displays preferred the option of building on several small, sustainably-located Green Belt sites around the edges of existing settlements if there was to be a need to look to develop any of the currently-designated Green Belt to help meet our future housing and employment land requirements. More than half of respondents to the detailed questionnaire (see below) were also supportive of potentially planning to allow for some development on small infill and ‘village rounding’ sites around the edges of existing settlements where they would not adversely impact on the general openness and purposes of the Green Belt. Two-thirds of respondents to the detailed questionnaire were also supportive of potentially allowing for some development around the edges of existing settlements where the additional homes and additional residents it would help to sustain the viable future of local shops and other community facilities and businesses.
Nearly two-thirds of respondents to the detailed questionnaire (see below) disagreed that potentially focusing any Green Belt development requirements on an entirely separate new settlement to help provide for our future housing and employment needs would be better than developing around the edges of existing settlements, with less than 10% of respondents in favour of this potential option. More than twice as many of those engaging at the exhibition events also supported building on a few sustainable larger Green Belt sites around the edges of existing settlements rather than focusing development on creating a separate new settlement (if any Green Belt was to be necessary), although the latter option of a new separate settlement was favoured more by a third of respondents to the quick questionnaire.
Detailed Question 6: Green Belt Land
The Green Belt around South Tyneside was originally established back in 1965 and forms part of the wider Tyne & Wear Green Belt. Its objective is to help manage the growth of the Tyneside and Wearside conurbations in a sustainable controlled way, so as to prevent incremental unplanned urban sprawl into the open countryside and the joining up of individual settlements. Its boundaries have seen various adjustments over the past 40+ years, both to release land needed for major new planned housing and industrial developments, where you may well now live or work, as well as being extended in other places to help protect additional recreational and natural landscape areas – there is a general presumption against new development on Green Belt land except in very special circumstances. South Tyneside’s Green Belt boundaries were last reviewed in the 1990s. Newcastle, Gateshead, Sunderland and Durham are already reviewing their Green Belt areas again to help meet their future growth needs.
The South Tyneside Green Belt presently covers about 2,408 hectares (5,950 acres), representing just over a third of the borough’s total land area. Whilst predominantly ‘greenfield’ in character, it also covers various previously- developed ‘brownfield’ sites, such as former colliery-related industrial land and Ministry of Defence properties as well as farmsteads. The essential purposes and functions of the Green Belt around South Tyneside nevertheless remain consistent with those set out in the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in preventing the merging of the built-up areas of South Tyneside, Sunderland, Washington and Gateshead, and preserving the special and separate characters of Boldon Colliery, West Boldon, East Boldon, Cleadon and Whitburn villages.
17
The public’s preferences for the suggested options were as follows:
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
A. The need to provide for sufficient new housing and employment land to meet South Tyneside’s future population and economic 29% 29% 6% 11% 26% growth requirements should generally be considered to outweigh any adverse impacts of development in the Green Belt
B. We should plan for managed release of some Green Belt land in sustainable locations where needed to meet future housing and 20% 23% 20% 6% 31% economic development needs, as long as it would not unreasonably impact on the general openness and purposes of the Green Belt
C. Development in the Green Belt should be avoided until all economically viable ‘brownfield’ (or lower quality ‘greenfield’) sites 11% 17% 11% 34% 26% within existing urban areas have been redeveloped first
D. We should plan to allow for the development of ‘brownfield’ or lower quality ‘greenfield’ sites in the Green Belt that do not as 14% 9% 29% 31% 14% positively contribute to the general openness or primary purposes and functions of the Green Belt
E. We should plan to allow for some development in the Green Belt in sustainable locations around the edges of existing settlements, eg. 23% 11% 9% 40% 17% through infill developments and ‘village rounding’ where it would not adversely impact on the general openness and purposes of the Green Belt
F. We should plan to allow for some development in the Green Belt in sustainable locations around the edges of existing settlements 17% 9% 9% 43% 23% where the additional homes and residents would help to enhance the economic viability and support the survival of village shops, post offices, pubs and other local businesses
G. It would be better to plan for a separate new settlement/village in the Green Belt, not adjoining any existing settlements, in order to 38% 24% 27% 0%6% help meet our housing and employment needs
H. Any release of Green Belt land for alternative development should only be planned for if the Green Belt can be extended elsewhere by 20% 9% 29% 37% 3% incorporating other land that would additionally contribute to its purposes and functions
Strongly disagree Tend to disagree Don't know Neither agree nor disagree Tend to agree Agree strongly
18
6. Health, Recreation and Quality of Life
Exhibition Display Question 7: How can we encourage healthier lifestyles?...
A good quality environment can encourage physical activity and can promote a better quality of life, health and wellbeing. Providing good quality recreational areas and playing fields can also encourage greater participation in sporting activities.
Quick Question 5: Health, Recreation and our Quality of Life
Opportunities for recreation, leisure and play perform a key role in improving people’s quality of life, health and wellbeing. We need to ensure we maintain sufficient recreational open spaces to meet the current and future needs of residents and visitors.
Please tell us if you agree with these proposals?
-40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
A. To help meet the growing demands from residents for more -6% allotment gardens, underused areas of parks and other open 70% spaces should be changed into allotment plots for people to -36% grow their own food 64%
B. Some grass playing pitches should be replaced with all- -22% weather pitches that can accommodate more frequent games 65% while protecting grass pitches from overuse that affects their -36% quality 64%
C. The numbers of hot food takeaways should be restricted in -5% close proximity to schools (where practical to do so) if it can be 80% shown that this would help to address problems with childhood -18% obesity 83%
Exhibition Events - No Exhibition Events - Yes Quick Questionnaire - No Quick Questionnaire - Yes
[Commenting on Option C is covered within the analysis to Detailed Question 4 (and Quick Question 2) above relating to the regeneration of our shopping centres which also asked about hot food takeaways in relation to their incidence both in local neighbourhood shopping centres and in close proximity to schools.]
The vast majority of respondents to the detailed questionnaire (see below) were in favour of ensuring that sufficient recreational open space and sport and leisure opportunities are provided to meet the full requirements of our future population.
About two-thirds of respondents to both questionnaires and who engaged with the exhibition displays were supportive of allowing for changing the use of underused parts of parks and other open spaces to help provide for more allotments for those wishing to grow their own produce. Three-quarters of respondents to the detailed questionnaire (see below) were in favour of seeing underused ‘backland’ sites in residential areas converted into allotments to help meet the borough’s needs.
19
Three quarters of respondents to the detailed questionnaire (see below), and two-thirds of respondents to the quick questionnaire and who engaged with the exhibition displays, were supportive of potentially replacing some grassed playing pitches with artificial, synthetic all-weather pitches that would accommodate more frequent usage while protecting grass pitches from detrimental overuse, as long as sufficient grass pitches were retained to meet league match requirements.
Detailed Question 7: Providing for Recreation and Leisure Opportunities
Opportunities for recreation, leisure and play perform a key role in improving people’s quality of life, health and wellbeing. We need to ensure we maintain sufficient formal and informal recreational open spaces, playing fields and children’s play areas, allotments and other sport and leisure facilities to meet the current and future needs of our resident population, workers and tourist visitors alike.
Making the most of our multi-functional ‘green infrastructure’ is increasingly important, with particular challenges being the high demands for more allotment gardens, the need to improve the quality of sports pitches and associated facilities, increasing maintenance costs and development pressures for the competing use of land from a forecast growing population.
The public’s preferences for the suggested options were as follows:
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
A. We should plan to ensure sufficient recreational open spaces and sporting facilities are provided to meet the full needs of our future 0%3%7% 32% 58% population
B. Some underused ‘backland’ sites in residential areas should be turned into allotment gardens for local people to grow their own 0%3% 19% 32% 45% produce
C. Lesser used parts of some parks and open spaces could be changed into allotment gardens for local people to grow their own 0%10% 29% 32% 29% produce
D. We should plan to replace some grass sports pitches with all- weather artificial/synthetic turf pitches that can accommodate more 3% 9% 13% 41% 34% intensive use throughout the year and help protect the quality of grass pitches, as long as enough
good quality grass pitches are still available to meet league Strongly disagree Tend to disagree match requirements Don't know Neither agree nor disagree Tend to agree Agree strongly
20
7. Sustainability and Transport
Exhibition Display Question 8: How can we live in a sustainable environment?...
With a changing climate and increasing demand on natural resources, we need to make sure that the way we live now and in the future is sustainable and protects the environment.
How should we encourage sustainable living in South Tyneside?
-20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
A. Make sure buildings are as energy-efficient as possible with the -1% 74% highest design standards?
B. Plan for and support large-scale renewable energy projects? -5% 56%
C. Allow our quarries to expand when required in order to provide the materials needed in the farming and construction -14% 29% industries?
Exhibition Events - No Exhibition Events - Yes
[Commenting on Options B and C are included within the analysis to Detailed Question 9 below relating to making the most of our natural environmental resources.]
Three-quarters of those who engaged with the exhibition events were supportive of ensure the highest standards of design and energy efficiency in new buildings (and with only very few against). A similar proportion of respondents to the detailed questionnaire (see Question 9 below) were in favour of encouraging or setting higher qualities of design and construction than the minimum standards required for building regulations and national sustainability targets.
Again, three quarters of respondents to the detailed questionnaire (see Question 9 below) also supported requiring the highest design standards and most appropriate construction materials when conserving and restoring historic buildings. However, an even greater proportion of respondents were in favour of allowing a bit more flexibility when restoring historic buildings where it would help ensure they can be viably brought back into productive use.
Detailed Question 8: Encouraging the Highest Qualities in Urban Design
Good design goes hand-in-hand with good planning. Well-designed developments, their layouts, buildings and the landscaped environments in which they sit all contribute to improving our sense of place and quality of life, including adding to our senses of local pride and feelings of personal safety in the places where we live, work, rest and play. Sustainable building and energy-efficient design and construction also help to mitigate the impacts of climate change. We want to encourage the highest standards of urban design and architecture in all developments, particularly for prominent or landmark buildings and those within our main town centres and most popular tourist locations, while still ensuring developments remain financially viable to be built in the first place.
Our historic buildings and structures also play an important part in contributing to the quality, cultural heritage and sense of place of our distinctive settlements. We want to ensure they are appropriately protected and conserved, and where they have become vacant or underused enabling them to be brought back into use wherever possible to
21 help secure their viable future and give them a new lease of life for the benefit of both our current and future generations.
The public’s preferences for the suggested options were as follows:
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
A. South Tyneside should encourage or set higher qualities of building and environmental design than the minimum standards 6%0% 21% 24% 50% required by building regulations and national sustainability targets (eg. Code for Sustainable Homes, Building for Life and BREEAM)
B. We should be rigorous in requiring the highest design standards and most appropriate construction materials when conserving and 0% 25% 28% 47% restoring historic buildings
C. Flexibility should be allowed in the restoration of vacant or underused historic buildings to improve the chances and viability of 0%3% 13% 50% 31% bringing them back into productive use
Strongly disagree Tend to disagree Don't know Neither agree nor disagree Tend to agree Agree strongly
22
Detailed Question 9: Making the Most of our Natural Environmental Resources
With a changing climate and given the finite nature of the majority of our natural energy resources and construction materials, we need to make the most of our environmental resources for the benefit of current and future generations alike. We therefore need to take advantage of renewable energy resources in the best possible ways, while minimising adverse impacts on sensitive landscapes, avoiding unnecessary development on river and coastal flood plains and managing surface water run-off that could otherwise lead to the flooding of homes and businesses.
The public’s preferences for the suggested options were as follows:
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
A. Maximum use of renewable energy resources, such as wind, wave and solar power, should be encouraged where viable and practical to 0%6% 9% 31% 53% do so, but as long as any adverse impacts on the natural landscape are minimised or can be reasonably and satisfactorily mitigated
B. Wind turbines shouldn’t be allowed in areas where they would adversely impact on our most valuable and sensitive natural and 6% 16% 19% 22% 38% historic landscapes
C. We should plan to safeguard land for possible future expansions of the Marsden limestone quarry and Red Barns brick shale quarry in 3%6% 22% 41% 22% order to help contribute towards maintaining a sufficient long-term supply of aggregates and building materials for the regional construction industry Strongly disagree Tend to disagree Don't know Neither agree nor disagree Tend to agree Agree strongly
The vast majority of respondents supported encouraging maximum use of renewable energy resources where viable and practical to do so and where their impacts on the borough’s natural landscape can be minimised and mitigated. However, while just over half of people engaging with the exhibition displays (see above) were in favour (albeit with only very few against) of planning to support large-scale renewable energy projects, more than half of respondents to the detailed questionnaire also felt that wind turbines shouldn’t be allowed in areas that would adversely impact on the borough’s most valuable and sensitive natural and historic landscapes.
Nearly two-thirds of respondents were also in favour of safeguarding land to enable the future expansion of the borough’s quarries in order to ensure that South Tyneside plays its part in contributing to providing sufficient aggregates and building materials for the regional construction industry. Twice as many of those engaging at the exhibition events were also in favour of allowing our quarries to expand to help provide materials for the farming and construction industries than those who were against their expansion.
23
Exhibition Display Question 9: How will we travel?..
We need to ensure that new developments are located in accessible areas to encourage sustainability and to promote opportunities for people to walk, cycle and to use public transport. We have excellent transport links in South Tyneside including the Metro, buses and ferry. However, we would like to know how you think we can improve transport links.
Do you think we should support?
-10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
A. A direct Metro link between South Shields and Sunderland? -10% 57%
B. Opportunities to provide new public transport links to job -1% 61% opportunities in our town centres and business parks?
C. Measures to help encourage children to travel to school by 0% 81% walking, cycling and public transport rather than the car?
D. Additional new pedestrian ferry routes across and along the -6% 57% River Tyne?
Exhibition Events - No Exhibition Events - Yes
The majority of those who engaged at the exhibition events were supportive of the options presented in relation to encouraging public transport opportunities. Nearly three-quarters of respondents to the detailed questionnaire (see below) were in favour of introducing measures to encourage people to travel to the borough’s main town centres by sustainable modes of travel rather than by car.
The vast majority of both those who engaged with the exhibition displays and those responding to the detailed questionnaire were also in favour of encouraging children to use sustainable modes of travel for going to school rather than by car.
Metro improvements were also supported by the majority of respondents, particularly track dualling of the Metro line between Pelaw and Bede, as well as enabling a new direct route between South Shields and Sunderland. Re- opening the former Leamside line for potential Metro and/or freight use was also favoured by nearly three-quarters of respondents to the detailed questionnaire (see below), in order to improve accessibility to Washington, Follingsby Business Park and the Nissan car plant while also taking some heavy goods traffic of our roads.
Three-quarters of respondents to the detailed questionnaire were also in favour of enabling more cross-river and up- river pedestrian ferry services to help improve accessibility to centres of attraction along both sides of the river.
24
Detailed Question 10: Sustainable Transport and Good Accessibility for All
One of the key objectives in planning is to facilitate sustainable patterns of development, locating new developments in sustainable and accessible locations together with well-designed development layouts, in order to enable and encourage more sustainable means of transport and thus encourage healthier living. This includes prioritising and maximising the opportunities for people to travel by walking, cycling and public transport as easily and safely as possible, and thereby reducing the need to use private motor cars.
The public’s preferences for the suggested options were as follows:
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
A. Further traffic management measures should be introduced to encourage people to visit our main town centres by public transport, 13% 6% 9% 31% 41% cycling and walking rather than by using private cars
B. Further measures should be introduced to help encourage children to travel to school by walking, cycling and public transport rather 3%3% 9% 31% 53% than by cars
C. Dualling of the Metro line between Pelaw and Bede (by track- sharing with the adjacent freight line) should continue to be 0%6% 9% 34% 47% supported and planned for, together with possible new Metro stations in the Hebburn and Jarrow areas
D. A new direct Metro rail link between South Shields and Sunderland (via either the former Tyne Dock or West Harton mineral 0%3% 16% 25% 50% line corridors) should continue to be supported and planned for, together with possible new Metro stations
E. The former Leamside railway line (southwards from Pelaw to Washington) should be re-opened to create a new Metro and/or 0% 22% 22% 50% railfreight link, to improve accessibility to key employment locations at Follingsby Park in Gateshead and the Nissan car plant in Sunderland, and to take some heavy goods traffic off our roads F. Additional new pedestrian ferry services across and along the River Tyne should be encouraged, to help improve accessibility to 0%6% 16% 38% 38% shopping, leisure and employment locations for people living and working on both sides of the river
Strongly disagree Tend to disagree Don't know Neither agree nor disagree Tend to agree Agree strongly
25
Quick Question 6: What else is Important to You?
Our Local Plan will address many other issues in addition to those covered in the above questions. Which of the following issues do you think should be the greatest priorities for us to try to deliver?
Please tick the 3 options that you feel are MOST important, and the 3 options that you feel are LEAST important: (please tick ONLY 3 options in each column)
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
A. Build a range of more affordable housing within new -12 25 developments
B. Ensure high levels of energy efficiency and sustainability in -14 20 new housing
C. Avoid building on land known to be at risk from flooding -5 27
D. Protect, enhance and where possible increase the provision of -22 18 wildlife sites
E. Protect, conserve and enhance local historic and cultural -11 25 heritage features
F. Provide more allotments so residents have more opportunities -25 8 to grow their own food
G. Improve the provision and quality of outdoor sports and play -17 11 facilities
H. Improve the provision of cycling and walking routes -25 15
I. Improve opportunities to access public transport (eg. new -16 18 Metro lines and stations)
Quick Questionnaire - 3 LEAST Important Quick Questionnaire - 3 MOST Important
Of these other matters presented in the quick questionnaire, respondents overall considered the 3 most important options to be to: Avoid building on land known to be at risk from flooding Protect, conserve and enhance local historic and cultural heritage features Build a range of more affordable housing within new developments
...while their 3 least important options of these were to: Provide more allotments so residents have more opportunities to grow their own food Improve the provision of cycling and walking routes Protect, enhance and where possible increase the provision of wildlife sites
26
8. Neighbourhood Planning
In addition to the council involving local communities in the preparation of our Local Plan and the development planning of our neighbourhoods, the Government has also introduced Neighbourhood Planning as a way of giving local communities the opportunity to formally plan for their local areas themselves and decide what these places should look like and how they should develop and grow in the future. It can be used to: choose where new homes, shops and offices should be built; have a say on what those new buildings should look like; influence the design and functionality of open spaces around where you live; and grant planning permission for the new buildings your community wants to see go ahead.
Neighbourhood Planning cannot be used to block the building of the homes and businesses considered to be necessary to meet the borough's current and future needs, such that Neighbourhood Planning proposals must be in accordance with the strategic elements of the council’s overarching statutory development plan. However, you can use it to influence the type, design, location and mix of the new development that does take place.
Neighbourhood Planning is optional and is done by local community groups, not by the council, although we can provide some guidance and technical assistance. There are also some independent organisations that can help assist you. Further information and guidance on how to go about doing Neighbourhood Planning is available on our website Planning pages at http://www.southtyneside.info/article/14849/Neighbourhood-planning.
There are three types of Neighbourhood Planning that local community groups may wish to do: Neighbourhood Plan – establish your vision and general planning policies and proposals for the future development and use of different plots of land in your local community area. Neighbourhood Development Order – allows you to grant planning permission for certain types of development that you want to see go ahead in your community area. Community Right to Build Order – allows you to grant planning permission for the local community to build small-scale housing developments, community facilities or shops, even in the Green Belt if you want to.
Respondents to the detailed questionnaire also indicated whether they as individuals or their local community were interested in or thinking about doing Neighbourhood Planning activities in the area where they live:
Resident in which parts of South Tyneside? Hebburn (2 respondents) Westoe (South Shields) Boldon Colliery (2 respondents) Jarrow Horsley Hill (South Shields) Whitburn South Shields (3 respondents) Holder House (South Shields)
A. Is your local community already thinking about B. Are you interested in, or thinking about, getting doing any Neighbourhood Planning in your area? involved in any local community group in your area Yes 4% to do some Neighbourhood Planning activities? Don't Know 22% No 30% Yes 48%
Don't Know 65% No 30%
27
C. Which types of Neighbourhood Planning activities do you think your local community might be most interested in doing? (please tick all that apply)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Neighbourhood Plan 10
Neighbourhood 6 Development Order
Community Right to 3 Build Order
Written comments regarding Neighbourhood Planning were as follows:
Response Respondent Ref. No. Concerns over the time, financial resource and expertise required for a David Hall IO/QD/6 community to commit to a Neighbourhood Plan. Very important but will the council take any notice, in practice? Tom Tweddell IO/QD/7 SOCIALCLAUSES Local Landowners should be actively included within Neighbourhood Planning Mr Joe Ridgeon IO/QD/14 activities. George F White LLP Are there any plans for further redevelopment of other areas in South Tyneside Mr Norman Gibbs IO/QD/15 like Boldon Colliery (Charles and Arnold Street area) Let’s make S/T into a vibrant and interesting place to live work and visit Mrs Ann Irvine-Taylor IO/QD/21
There has already been a series of neighbourhood plans and community Mrs H McCallion IO/QD/27 development across the Borough over the past few years. Build on those, try not to reinvent the wheel but incorporate new plans and vision I don't believe there has been enough communication about these activities to Miss Lynn Henderson IO/QD/28 generate any interest although I would certainly be interested in being involved in any such initiatives. Whilst it is good for local communities to get involved, I'm not sure such powers Mr Kevin Broadbent IO/QD/29 should actually be invested in them for granting permissions, would they have the necessary technical expertise, would decisions be too much influenced by a few individuals? Neighbourhood Plans can be costly and time consuming, but can be useful Mrs Gillan Gibson IO/QD/30 Campaign to Protect Rural England
28
Annex A: Equality Monitoring
Almost all of those responding to the quick questionnaire and almost half of those who filled in the more detailed questionnaire were responding as local residents, with the latter being more favoured by local landowners, developers, consultants and other organisations. Some responded both as a local resident and also as a local business person or landowner or representing another organisation, with one person completing the detailed questionnaire twice from the point of view of being a local resident and then separately in terms of his perspective as a local businessman.
Quick Questionnaire Respondents: Detailed Questionnaire Respondents:
Local Developer / Landowner 0 Agent 0 Other Other Organisation 2 Organisation 7 Local Business 3
Developer / Local Resident Agent 6 20
Local Landowner 4 Local Resident 54 Local Business 5
Questionnaire respondents were also asked to provide some equality information to help us understand how representative of the borough the responses received had been from and to what extent we had managed to perhaps engage with some of the more ‘hard to reach’ sectors of the population. Nearly two-thirds of those responding to the quick questionnaire and three-quarters of those filling in the detailed questionnaire were male. The majority of respondents were middle-aged, with just over a third being ‘elderly’ people. All respondents stated their ethnicity to be white, although some of those who engaged with the exhibition event displays were of other ethnicities.
Quick Questionnaire Respondents: Sex? Disability? Age? Under 17 18-24 Have a 75+ 0 2 25-34 Disibility 5 4 Female 9 19 35-44 2
65-74 18 45-54 Male 29 12 No Disibility 55-64 32 8
Detailed Questionnaire Respondents: Under 17 Sex? Disability? Have a Age? 75+ 18-24 0 Disibility 0 1 2 65-74 5 Female 7 25-34 5
35-44 55-64 2 5 No Male 21 Disibility 45-54 26 10
29
Annex B: Getting Involved in Future Consultation
Respondents filling in the detailed questionnaire (of which over half were local residents) were asked about their preferences for how they might like to be kept involved during future consultation stages for the Local Plan. On the whole, the most favoured forms of engagement and communication were by e-mail correspondence, together with the Forward Planning team’s Local Plan e-Newsletter and online questionnaires (albeit it is recognised that many residents still prefer hard copy printed questionnaires given that a third of people, and almost half of those filling in the quick questionnaire, opted to use the printed version). Public consultation exhibitions and discussion events were also reasonably popular.
Community Engagement Preferences:
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Postal letter, 15%
E-mail, 79%
Questionnaire (printed), 3%
Online Questionnaire (via internet), 38%
Local Plan e-Newsletter, 47%
'South Tyneside' Community Newsletter, 12% Council Website (Planning pages), 15% Local Media Press Releases/Notices, 6% Public Consultation Exhibition Event, 27% Discussion Forum/ Workshop Event, 18%
30
Annex C: Schedule of Written Response Comments
Population, Housing and Economic Growth
Quick Question 1: Do you have any other views on housing and economic growth? Response Respondent Ref. No.
No housing on green belt as we have too little green spaces Mrs D Bolam IO/QL/4 What I don’t want to see is more of the same more houses and mini industrial Mr Brendan Abbott IO/QL/6 estates Hopefully the increase in jobs will in the area will result in more opportunities for [Anon] IO/QL/8 residents to own their own homes and take pressure off social housing Options A,B, and C should not bracket together homes and jobs Mr Tom Tweddell IO/QL/9 SOCIALCLAUSES Housing densities will ultimately be determined by site constraints, house types, Mr Bates O'Keefe IO/QL/11 need, demand, proximity to services, transport links, deliverability, etc. Higher densities can be achieved through good design (such as at Amytis Gardens and Sinclair Meadows in South Shields) without the need for high rise development or 'town cramming'. The demand for lower density executive housing, in the right locations and at the right time, should be seriously considered as this can often be overlooked. Obviously, housing growth and requirements will relate heavily to the types and scale of economic growth and achieving a suitable balance between managerial, skilled and unskilled employment opportunities for the local and surrounding population. I firmly believe that you have to aim to attract a large organisation into the [Anon] IO/QL/14 Borough either manufacturing or commercial. Not only can it, itself, bring both new jobs and new people, but it also encourages satellite industries and the service sector. Nissan is a perfect example. Put bluntly there is no point at this time looking to build lots of houses if there are no new jobs, and for that matter insufficient infrastructure to accommodate increased traffic and demand for goods and services. No comment really. But having heard about private landlord problems at a recent Mr Duncan Anderson IO/QL/17 Jarrow and Boldon CAF meeting, I would like to ask - could not the council build houses for rent? As for economic growth, I am sure that there are still plenty of places available along the Riverside that could be used Maybe the council could consider buying up elderly people's houses, then placing Mrs Sylvia Hepburn IO/QL/18 a single or couple into more suitable housing. The house bought could accommodate larger families Giving the new bedroom tax STC should be thinking about building one beds or Miss Scott IO/QL/19 converting two beds to ones. All build on reclaimed land or derelict Existing stock should be altered to allow older folks to stay in their homes. Invest Alan Daw IO/QL/20 in small business then all your eggs are not in one basket Beacon Heating Making the purchase of cheaper housing for 2nd / holiday homes less attractive, [Anon] IO/QL/23 thus freeing it up for use by local residents and ensuring year long input into the local economy Modern and semi-modern on development areas! Mr Joseph Bourke IO/QL/25 Larger houses built closely together like terraces and Tyneside flats offer good [Anon] IO/QL/29 housing options. New business developments should fit into existing sites or regenerate ugly post-war builds not block views or cause new road layouts or loss of recreation grounds Let us do up unused rented properties now! More accessible venues for meetings Roz Slater IO/QL/31 are needed to encourage public consultation and to make us feel what we say counts
31
We desperately need 1 bed flats / houses (not high rise) and decent sized 1 bed [Anon] IO/QL/34 bungalows HEBBURN town centre in particular is saturated with housing development [Anon] IO/QL/35 especially with the wrong types of dwelling , a re-think may be in order There are already enough low priced/affordable/shared ownership starter [Anon] IO/QL/37 homes/flats in South Tyneside. There is a need for more new homes in the higher price bracket to attract more affluent people to the area & enable those already here to better themselves, thereby raising standards & expectations. This in turn would free up homes further down the price ladder so that people could buy upwardly mobile whilst remaining where their roots are. Looking at the area map, it appears there is sufficient underused land which Mr John Howard Wright IO/QL/40 could, indeed should be utilised. Alongside above, perhaps consideration should be investigated to have something similar to the vastly used "Silverlink" trading est in North Tyneside? Cheaper houses so that people on lower incomes - first time buyers can home [Anon] IO/QL/41 own New housing estates are badly designed and cramped together to profit the [Anon] IO/QL/42 builders. Not enough garages and gardens, trees unattractive, council should charge people to reinstate grass verges where residents / visitors park Adequate parking is key to new development. Modern housing estates have Mr Chris Chaganis IO/QL/44 insufficient garages, off road parking Custom Bags Why create that many new jobs? People don't want to work Mrs Pat Schaeffer IO/QL/45 G. No chance of multi national businesses coming to this town as rents and rates Mr Stidolph IO/QL/48 too large Replace decrepit buildings as first option. Discourage any increase in population David Williams IO/QL/49 to avoid making problems worse. All housing should be ACCESSIBLE so able people can use it as well. [Anon] IO/QL/50 More social homes for rent needed. If we are to attract big businesses higher Cllr. James Foreman IO/QL/51 value houses (£1/2 million plus) needed as well Higher quality housing needed. More garages should be built with new houses as [Anon] IO/QL/52 car parking is a problem on the new housing estates I have seen. More small trees and flower beds needed We need more high street shopping not charity shops and betting outlets. No [Anon] IO/QL/54 more monstrosities like the BT building Elderly population increasing so specific accommodation provided for them. [Anon] IO/QL/56 Multi-national businesses only seem to stay short term after using the incentives up
Detailed Question 1: Providing for our Growing Population Response Respondent Ref. No.
The most recent census has the population of South Tyneside is lower than the Geoff Mound IO/QD/11 2010 based population estimates, which suggests that currently South Tyneside's population is falling, as is the case for much of the North East. More work needs to be done on the reasons for this decline (likely to be to economic situation and lack of jobs) before we can have a clear understanding of how that population decline can be halted and reversed. I think that the forecast population is too high, but it is important that we deliver the jobs and housing needed to make South Tyneside a viable place long term. In accordance with the NPPF (paragraph 159), the SHMA should fully assess Mr Joe Ridgeon IO/QD/14 needs, in conjunction with neighbouring LPA's. George F White LLP
32
The Highways Agency has no particular option preference but generally considers Ian Radley IO/QD/20 that whilst the plan should aim to meet the forecast demand for new housing and Asset Manager employment opportunities, it should be realistic in its aims as to what will Highways Agency ultimately be deliverable and sustainable. Maintaining an effective and efficient transport infrastructure network should be key consideration when determining the appropriate level of growth South Tyneside has always attracted people therefore there is no need to actively Mrs Ann Irvine-Taylor IO/QD/21 attract more we need to help and support the local population to full employment and housing to meet the needs of our borough. Barratt & David Wilson Homes North East fully agrees and supports South James Reid (Strategic Land IO/QD/23 Tyneside Council regarding Question 1. In accordance with paragraph 14 of the Buyer) NPPF, LPAs must meet the objectively assessed needs of their area. As noted in Barratt & David Wilson paragraph 159 needs should be established using an up-to-date SHMA and the Homes North East most current household and population projections. We shouldn't be trying to attract new residents into the borough at the detriment Miss Lynn Henderson IO/QD/28 of the existing quality of life of the current residents by for example redeveloping green field sites. There is no point in providing more homes if this just increases demand for out Mr Kevin Broadbent IO/QD/29 commuting for work, whether for new residents attracted because ST is a nice place to live, or even for young people growing up. Coupled with the baby boom, this will also increase demand for school places, and the rationalisation carried out 3-5 years ago has already reduced the number of places, and since the buildings / land have not been retained, where can these places be accommodated? Homes do need to provided for an ageing population, close to facilities. While we recognise the need to plan for future growth, it is unclear from these Barbara Hooper IO/QD/34 statements whether the intention is to plan for the projected growth anticipated National Trust for the next 20-25 years. South Tyneside is a relatively small geographic area, with limited green and open space, and future growth needs to ensure adequate protection for this. The NPPF only requires identification of 5 years supply of housing (plus 5% buffer), with broad locations up to a possible 15 years. There is also an emphasis on brownfield development. We would therefore wish to see these options fully supported by up to date and rigorous evidence on types and numbers of developments required, with strong protection afforded to the natural and local environment. We strongly agree with Option A that South Tyneside should plan to provide Mr John Pearce IO/QD/35 sufficient homes and job opportunities to meet the needs of the forecast future Senior Planner population. The Council acknowledge that the population of South Tyneside is Barton Willmore – on behalf expected to grow again over the next 20-25 years and should therefore plan to of Church Commissioners accommodate for the projected level of need that will arise from the resident population. Guidance in paragraph 47 of the NPPF states that local planning authorities should use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area in order to significantly boost the supply of housing in their area. The fact that the Council recognise that the population is going to grow indicates that there is a need to provide additional housing over and above that which is currently proposed in the adopted Core Strategy and that the Council should be looking to meet this need within their area in accordance with the guidance in the NPPF. Significantly boosting the supply of housing to meet a growing population is central to the Government’s plans for economic growth and to get the housing market moving again. The Government published ‘Laying the Foundations: A Housing Strategy for England’ (November 2011), which recognises that housing is crucial for our social mobility, health and well-being, and that housing is inextricably linked to the wider health of the economy. The strategy therefore sets out an extensive range of actions to help meet the housing needs of the country - now and in the future and confirms the Government’s clear intention to unlock the housing market and get Britain building again. The subsequent Ministerial Written Statement of the 6th September 2012 reiterated the 33
Government’s number one priority of getting the economy growing and the role that the planning system and the delivery of new housing remains a key driver of this national policy objective. We therefore support the Council’s intention to plan positively to meet the needs of its growing population and in doing so, looking to boost the supply of housing which will have wider benefits in terms of contributing to the economic recovery. Consequently, we disagree with Option B that the Council should not fully provide for its forecast population growth and as stated above, consider that it should be looking to provide for its full objectively assessed level of need within its area. Whilst cross-boundary working may be an option we query what discussions have taken place and whether it is realistic that adjoining authorities would accept meeting the needs of South Tyneside. In our view there is sufficient land available in South Tyneside to meet the needs of a growing population and whilst the duty to cooperate exists we do not envisage that adjoining authorities would need to accommodate any of South Tyneside's growth at this time. We strongly agree with Option C that by providing sufficient housing and employment opportunities within the District this will help prevent out- commuting outside of the city region or wider north east area. The NPPF has sustainable development as a golden thread running through the heart of it and by providing jobs close to where people live will help create more sustainable patterns of development. We therefore agree that sufficient housing and employment opportunities should be provided for those who wish to stay in the borough. We strongly agree with Option D that the Council should look to attract more people to the Borough. The NPPF at paragraph 14 encourages a positive approach to plan making in order to meet the development needs of the area and we consider that providing for a growing population the Council would be taking a positive proactive stance to the planning of the area over the Plan Period. By attracting new residents, levels of out migration would be reduced thereby helping to stabilise the resident population with the resultant benefit of helping to sustain existing levels of service provision such as schools and health services along with shops and retail provision. Furthermore, a growing population could create additional demand for new shops and services, thus benefiting existing residents through greater choice but also existing businesses through additional custom and trade. In summary, we believe that the Council should plan positively for a growing population and should look to not only meet the needs of the future forecast population but to exceed these and adopt a pro-growth strategy that actively looks to attract people and employers to South Tyneside. This approach would help regenerate the Borough as well as helping to sustain and enhance existing levels of service provision across the borough. In line with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), there is a clear Miss Caroline Strugnell IO/QD/36 requirement to boost significantly the supply of housing and to ensure the Local Planning Manager Plan meets the full 'objectively assessed' need for housing in South Tyneside. Bellway Homes (NE) Ltd Option A complies with the NPPF and is the most appropriate in this regards. Not planning positively to accommodate the projected household growth within South Tyneside (Option B) is not considered an appropriate strategy. If the Council elects to pursue such an approach then there will be a clear duty to cooperate with adjacent authorities to ensure that any unmet needs arising from South Tyneside are appropriately addressed within neighbouring districts. Our client supports with Option 1a. A key test of soundness is that Local Plans are Mr Nicholas Graham IO/QD/37 consistent with national planning policy. In this regard, as the Council will be Senior Planner aware, the National Planning Policy Framework contains at its heart a Nathaniel Lichfield & presumption in favour of sustainable development (paragraph 14). This requires, Partners – on behalf of inter alia, that: LNMPH Property Holdings “Local Plans should meet objectively assessed needs…” (NLP emphasis). Limited As such, it is essential that the Local Plan is prepared on the basis of Option 1a if it is to be found sound at examination. Our client considers that Option 1b, which proposes not to fully provide for forecast population growth, is in direct conflict
34 with the NPPF and is therefore unsound. Our client supports with Option 1c and 1d. In our view, the Borough should seek to deliver additional housing and employment opportunities above the level required to meet needs. Doing so will help to align the Local Plan with: • The Core Planning Principles of the NPPF, including that which requires local planning authorities to “…respond positively to wider opportunities for growth…”; and • The NPPF requirement that Local Plans are “positively prepared”, which is one of the four tests of soundness. As referred to below, South Tyneside and the North East as a whole suffers from a high rate of net internal out-migration. A range of evidence, such as the joint housebuilder submission to the Adonis Review [http://nlpplanning.com/new- housing], indicates that these trends are fuelled by both the shortage of available employment opportunities and the inability to gain access to the housing market. Delivering new jobs and homes at a higher rate than required simply to meet needs will therefore help to slow, and indeed reverse this trend – it will help to reduce the rate of internal outmigration and might attract households from outside South Tyneside to move here. In our view, this is essential to secure a bright, sustainable future for the Borough in both social and economic terms. Please find attached a copy of our call for sites consultation response dated Miss Samantha Nicholls IO/QD/38 October 2012 for the site Ellison Street, Hebburn, South Tyneside, NE31 1BW. We Planning Director would request that this site be allocated for residential development in Leith Planning Limited – on circumstances the site is unviable in solely employment use and as such, has no behalf of MMC reasonable prospect of being used for that purpose Developments Limited
Detailed Question 2: Housing our Growing Population Response Respondent Ref. No.
Empower people to develop their own homes, and therefore futures will help us Mr Greg Wood IO/QD/5 create the fabled 'big society' We should be planning to meet the forecast needs of the future, in the most David Hall IO/QD/6 sustainable locations possible. House building should be focussed on existing brownfield sites in town centre locations - South Shields, Jarrow, Hebburn etc. - near to existing public transport links. If such locations cannot be identified then alternative locations could be looked at. RE QD - increasing density goes against market requirements at the present time Mr Steve Willcock IO/QD/10 and would skew land supply requirements resulting in insufficient housing Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd allocations. RE QE - provision of bungalows are not viable on a large scale. RE QF - onerous policy requirements Has this household numbers estimate been based on a SHMA as well as Geoff Mound IO/QD/11 population trends information? It is extremely important that South Tyneside is clear about who it is providing for. As mentioned already, in the current economic climate the population projections these housing numbers are based on are likely to be ambitious. It is important that housing is not built without ideas about where these people will be coming from to live in the housing- it is not true that just because it’s being built, people will come. In addition, I would be interested to hear about the industry's view on the amount of housing that the South Tyneside market could take; recent new build in the borough has taken a very long time to build out because the market has not been there for the homes. Allocating more land could jeopardise programmes of renewal and redevelopment in the Town Centre areas, in particular Hebburn, which has a lot of housing land, but little market for that housing. The housing allocation also needs to take into consideration the duty to co- Mr Joe Ridgeon IO/QD/14 operate, in accordance paragraph 179 of the NPPF. George F White LLP
35
The Highways Agency has no particular option preference, but considers that Ian Radley IO/QD/20 taking forward elements of several of the options would be beneficial. It is Asset Manager considered that the plan should seek to deliver sustainable, realistic and Highways Agency achievable growth as set out in Option C. Opportunities to provide higher density developments, promoted in Option D could also be sought, provided it is focussed in the right locations, such as existing centres, close to sustainable transport nodes and along key public transport corridors. This should help to deliver housing development which maximises access to sustainable transport opportunities, employment opportunities and local amenities, whilst helping to reduce the need to travel by private car We should concentrate on small local building firms and self build giving the town Mrs Ann Irvine-Taylor IO/QD/21 a desirable look of individuality not home buildings by big firms who have no empathy with the want of the local people. Cleadon Park is a prime example of bad building ideas area already looking shabby
LPA's must seek to meet their objectively assessed needs. If South Tyneside James Reid (Strategic Land IO/QD/23 Council is planning to fail it must acknowledge the Duty to Cooperate. In other Buyer) words, it must ensure that neighbouring authorities are planning to facilitate the Barratt & David Wilson unmet needs of South Tyneside. However, judging from their emerging plans it Homes North East would appear this is not the case. With regard to Statement D the density of development should be determined by the housing need which should be established through the SHMA. Provision should be made for windfall sites which can be a major contributor to Mrs Gillan Gibson IO/QD/30 housing, but cannot be accurately predicted Campaign to Protect Rural England Whilst it is important to make best use of the available land, it is also beneficial Nick Sandford IO/QD/33 for people to be provided with adequate greenspace, including trees and The Woodland Trust woodland if they are to have a high quality of life As for Question 1, it is unclear if the statement is referring to the need to provide Barbara Hooper IO/QD/34 for the projected demand for the next 20-25 years - which appears to go beyond National Trust the requirements of the NPPF. While recognising that there is a need to provide new homes and businesses, we would wish to see this supported by a strong set of design principles which deliver sustainability, ensuring that new development utilises existing buildings and brownfield land imaginatively and effectively, and reduces the need for greenfield development. As set out in our response to Question 1 we are supportive of the population of Mr John Pearce IO/QD/35 South Tyneside growing and contend that the Council should actively encourage Senior Planner the growth of the population rather than just accommodating its increase through Barton Willmore – on behalf natural growth. The Issues and Options Paper notes that based on the latest of Church Commissioners housing growth projections an additional 10,000 - 12,000 extra new homes will be required in the Borough over the next 20 - 25 years, which equates to 5,000 - 7,000 more homes than have already been planned for. The guidance in paragraph 47 of the NPPF states that local planning authorities should ensure that their Plan meets the full objectively assessed needs for housing. The Council’s initial assessment of the amount of housing required indicates that they need to provide an additional 10-12,000 extra new homes and as such, this is the level of housing that they should be looking to deliver. Failure to do so would be contrary to the guidance in the NPPF and could result in the Plan being found unsound. We therefore strongly agree that the Council should be looking to provide for at least this number of additional homes over the Plan Period. Notwithstanding the above, the 2011 household projections have just recently been published on the 9th April and these will need to be interrogated to ascertain whether there have been any further changes since the Council published their 2011-Based Population and Household Projections Paper in October 2012, which used the 2011 midyear estimates prepared by the ONS. Whilst the midyear estimates do represent the most up to date projections at the time of publication of the Issues and Options we suggest that the housing requirement should be looked at again following the publication of the 2011 projections on the 9th April.
36
Whilst we recognise the work that the Council have undertaken in seeking to utilise the most up to date household projections, the guidance in paragraph 159 of the NPPF states that local planning authorities should prepare a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) in order to assess their full housing needs. It is unfortunate that the updated SHMA was not made available as part of this consultation although we have been assured that it is in preparation and will be available to inform future stages of preparation of the Plan. As it has not yet been published there may be scope to update it to reflect the latest household projections that have just been published. We also note the importance of an up to date SHMA following the recent experience of Coventry City Council whose Local Development Plan was deemed unlawful by an Inspector following submission principally on the grounds that in failing to cooperate with adjoining authorities on the matter of cross boundary issues, it had not objectively assessed its housing needs. We disagree that it would not be possible to increase the rates of house building within the District to levels necessary to meet future housing needs. Whilst historically there has been a focus on the redevelopment of brownfield and previously developed land, this has its own associated issues in terms of delivery and viability, such as the need to remediate it and remove any contamination so that it is safe to reuse. As opportunities for the redevelopment of previously development land decrease there will be a need to consider greenfield sites. In this case, these sites are likely to be less constrained and consequently they would be easier to develop and could deliver new housing at an improved rate than has historically been the case. This could go some way to achieving the step change in delivery that would be required in order to meet the future levels of housing need in the Borough. We do not agree that housing densities should be increased to reduce the amount of land that is required to meet future housing needs. Recent past experience has demonstrated the overreliance on the construction of high density apartment schemes to deliver new dwellings, and the market has and continues to change with purchasers demanding houses as opposed to apartments. Without the updated SHMA, we cannot confirm that this is the case in South Tyneside but our experience elsewhere indicates a preponderance in demand for family housing over apartments. We therefore believe that the Council should be looking to focus on the delivery of family housing with an element of higher density apartments in appropriate locations to increase the range and type of housing on offer in the District. In terms of lower density accommodation for older persons, we are broadly supportive of the need to cater for these types of housing. If land is identified to accommodate such developments then there will be a need for addition land elsewhere within the District to meet the balance of the full housing needs The Council should identify and allocate sufficient additional land to meet the full Miss Caroline Strugnell IO/QD/36 future housing needs as required by the NPPF. Option A suggests this should be in Planning Manager the region of 10,000 to 12,000 new homes in the next 20 to 25 years (some 480 to Bellway Homes (NE) Ltd 500 dwellings per annum). We note that this is higher than the existing Core Strategy requirement (which ranges from 240 to 330 dwellings per annum on average) but is more aligned with the extant RS requirement (albeit this is soon to be abolished). The suggested target looks to be deliverable on the basis of the level of gross completions achieved over the last 10 years (which has been in excess of 300 dwellings for 8 out of the last 10 years) and noting the significant reduction in projected demolitions going forward. We broadly support the suggested figures whilst acknowledging that these may need revising to take into account the recently published 2011-based household projections and more up to date evidence as the Plan proceeds to Examination in Public. We disagree with Option B which would not comply with the NPPF requirements to meet the full objectivity assessed needs. We would also urge against an approach that supports a lower requirement justified on the basis that this represents the public view and / or is capacity-based. The examinations of Coventry, East Hampshire and Bath & North East Summerset local plans have found such approaches to determining the housing requirement to be unsound. We look forward to working with the Council over the coming months in ensuring 37 a robust evidence base is established to support the final housing requirement for the Plan Period. We would strongly oppose an approach that sought to minimise land take by increasing density via development of flats and apartments (Option D). Whilst apartments might be appropriate in some locations there is a very limited market at present. Developer appetite to build such products is likely to be limited in the short to medium term with the demand being for larger family homes with gardens. Such a strategy would be undeliverable. In relation to Option F we would caution against a policy requirement to incorporate self-build plots on development sites. Such a requirement would introduce uncertainty and complications for the developer in terms of scheme design, land disposal, build programme / operations and sales which would likely necessitate physical segregation. Also general market housing sites may not be considered appropriate locations for the self-builder who is likely to seek greater exclusivity. We suggest that specific allocations would more appropriately address this requirement. In respect of housing, the NPPF reiterates at paragraph 47 that local planning Mr Nicholas Graham IO/QD/37 authorities should: Senior Planner “…boost significantly the supply of housing…”(NLP emphasis). Nathaniel Lichfield & And that they should: Partners – on behalf of “…use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, LNMPH Property Holdings objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing…” (NLP emphasis). Limited As such, it is essential that Local Plan significantly increases the rate of housing supply in the Borough and, in particular, identifies and allocates sufficient land to meet its full housing needs if it is to be found sound. Our client therefore: • Supports with Option 2a as only this option will result in sufficient land being allocated to meet the Borough’s full needs; and • Objects to Option 2b and 2c as both of these options will not identify sufficient land to meet needs. The consultation question states that the housing needs of the Borough are approximately 10,000 to 12,000 dwellings over the 20-25 years (between approximately 400 to 600 dwellings per annum). The evidential basis for these figures is unclear and we therefore reserve the right to comment on these figures at a later date. However, we use the present opportunity to highlight the publication of the 2011- based Interim Household Projections on 9th April 2013 by the Department for Communities and Local Government. These projections use data from the Census 2011 to identify the projected growth in the number of households between 2011 and 2021. It is therefore a key source of objective evidence regarding the scale of housing needs. For South Tyneside they set out that the number of households will grow by 450 per annum. However, we consider that the household projections underestimate the scale of housing need in the Borough. This is because the household projections simply project forward what has happened during the recession, a period characterised by issues such as housing undersupply and restricted mortgage finance. This has resulted in reduced housing market activity, which in turn has suppressed the formation of new households as people struggle to gain access to the housing ladder. These trends are contrary to the objectives of the NPPF, which aims to increase opportunities for home ownership and significantly accelerate the rate of housebuilding. The Council will therefore need to ensure that the future housing requirement for South Tyneside is established at a level which is sufficient to address these issues. It will clearly be important to undertake a thorough assessment of the Borough’s housing needs over the future plan period to explore these issues. We also note that there has been significant housing under delivery in the past. Since the start of the North East Regional Strategy2 plan period in 2004/05 a total of 1,844 dwellings (net) have been delivered against a requirement for 2,795 dwellings (net). This equates to a shortfall of 951 dwellings (net). It will be important to ensure that, as well as accommodating future needs, the housing 38 requirement for South Tyneside takes account of this housing undersupply. Unmet needs should not be left unmet. In respect of the remaining options under Question 2, our client: • Objects to Option 2d. We recognise that increasing the density on some sites may be appropriate. However, we disagree that the Local Plan should take an approach to increase the density on all sites. This may result in increased overcrowding and may result in the delivery of development which does not meet the Borough’s needs. Different sites will require different densities depending both on the physical characteristics of the site and its surroundings, as well as the type of development proposed. The Borough will require a wide range of developments with varying densities. In our view, the key consideration is to ensure that the Local Plan will deliver the Borough’s housing needs; • Supports with Option 2e. Again, the principal aim should be to ensure that the Local Plan delivers the Borough’s housing needs rather than simply reducing the amount of development land. As such, the Local Plan should respond to the demonstrable need for new, lower density elderly accommodation; and • Neither agrees nor disagrees with Option 2f. As with the above, the Local Plan should respond accordingly if there is a demonstrable need to provide land on which people can build their own homes, mindful that the sustainability of new housing development is a key consideration. The mixed use, residential led scheme proposed on land at Ellison Street Miss Samantha Nicholls IO/QD/38 (delineated on the attached plan) will assist the council in meeting their housing Planning Director needs for the plan period Leith Planning Limited – on behalf of MMC Developments Limited
Detailed Question 3: Providing for Economic Growth and Employment Opportunities Response Respondent Ref. No.
Work on sub-regional basis - particularly Gateshead and Sunderland - so that a David Hall IO/QD/6 balanced approach to providing new employment locations is achieved. The Highways Agency is generally supportive of the aspirations of ensuring that Ian Radley IO/QD/20 there are sufficient development opportunities to deliver sustainable employment Asset Manager growth. The recognition that such locations will need to be sustainable and Highways Agency accessible is also welcomed. Again, the Agency has no particular option preference and considers that the best approach would be to take forward elements from several of the options. A realistic and deliverable approach for economic growth is recommended and therefore should Option A not be achievable then the more pragmatic and potentially viable option presented in Option B could be sought. Whilst the Agency would wish to see a reduction in commuting to and from neighbouring areas, as such trips generally impact on the Strategic Road Network, it is recognised that such movements are inevitable and as such should be appropriately planned for in collaboration with the Agency to ensure opportunities to minimise or mitigate such movements are delivered. Seeking to attract large multinational businesses and changing the use of existing unviable employment sites, presented in Options C and D, could in principle be supported, but would ultimately depend on the location, level of sustainable accessibility and the potential impact on the Strategic Road Network Again, the Council should seek to meet its objectively assessed needs and plan for James Reid (Strategic Land IO/QD/23 growth. Buyer) Barratt & David Wilson Homes North East Royal Mail supports the Councils aims to meet the needs of the local economy. Janet Entwistle IO/QD/24 The above statement [Q3, response D] suggests that the Council will protect Senior Consultant, Planning existing employment uses, with redevelopment for alternative development only DTZ – on behalf of Royal acceptable where sites have become unviable for ongoing business use. Mail Group
39
We request that, any policy controlling change from employment to alternative uses should reflect the impact that a non-employment or sensitive use can have on an existing neighbouring employment use. Essentially, the introduction of residential development in close proximity to a Royal Mail Delivery Office may result in noise complaints from new residents and sanctions being imposed on the Delivery Office. Should any of the land surrounding Royal Mail’s Delivery Offices be redeveloped, it would be vital that any new uses (particularly residential) are designed and managed so that they are both cognisant of and sensitive to Royal Mail’s operations. These measures will ensure that Royal Mail’s operations will not be prejudiced and that they can continue to comply with their statutory duty to maintain a ‘universal service’ for the UK pursuant to the Postal Services Act 2000. This approach accords with adopted Government guidance set out in the National Planning Policy Statement (NPPF) (March 2012) which advises that local planning authorities should help achieve economic growth by planning proactively to meet the development needs of business and support an economy fit for the 21st century. The NPPF also advises that local planning authorities should support existing business sectors, taking account of whether they are expanding or contracting. It also states that policies should be flexible enough to accommodate needs not anticipated in the plan and to allow a rapid response to changes in economic circumstances (Paragraphs 20-21). We shouldn't restrict the type of use. Properties should be used as fits them best Miss Lynn Henderson IO/QD/28 within planning guidelines. In principle agree with C, however the availability of land for this is in question. Mr Kevin Broadbent IO/QD/29 Previous attempts to investigate land south of Fellgate were a failure due to local opposition and this area is not accessible except by car and the additional traffic could not be accommodated on the road network. Comment later on the loss of greenbelt. Maybe some existing industrial areas need to be redeveloped instead. There should be a strong preference towards the reuse of sites. There should be a Mrs Gillan Gibson IO/QD/30 sequential approach to steer development towards brownfield sites and away Campaign to Protect Rural from green field. The Green Belt should be protected from development. England Without the background evidence on the economic development opportunities Barbara Hooper IO/QD/34 within the Borough, it is difficult to comment on these statements. For example, National Trust the current and future economic patterns of the global economy may mean that, irrespective of land being made available, it may be unlikely that multi-national businesses would now locate in the area. We would like to see this set of policies supported by evidence of the new or emerging sectors which may locate into the area, along with recognition of the contribution that can be made by small or more 'bespoke' businesses. We fully support the Council’s aspirational economic growth requirements of up Mr John Pearce IO/QD/35 to 14,000 new jobs over the next 20-25 years and believe that the Council should Senior Planner be looking to create major economic development and employment opportunities Barton Willmore – on behalf within the Borough. Previously, land to the south of Fellgate had been promoted of Church Commissioners as a prestige employment site through the North East RSS, although ultimately this was not taken forward. We believe that the site remains suitable for consideration for a mix of employment, commercial and residential uses and would enable the Council to deliver a site that could offer a range of sites for development of different sizes and uses that would have the potential to attract new multi-national businesses to the Borough. Economic growth and the creation of jobs are central to the Government’s growth agenda. As part of this, the Chancellor of the Exchequer issued a call to action on growth, publishing an ambitious set of proposals to help rebuild Britain’s economy. The Ministerial Statement entitled ‘Planning for Growth’ published in 2011, highlighted the key role the planning system could play in this, by ensuring that the sustainable development needed to support economic growth is able to proceed as easily as possible. In recognition that reforms to the planning system needed to support economic growth would take time to implement, the statement sets out the steps the Government expects local planning authorities to take with immediate effect. The Government’s top priority is to promote 40 sustainable economic growth and jobs, with a clear expectation that the answer to development and growth should wherever possible be ‘yes’, except where this would compromise the key sustainable development principles set out in the NPPF. The delivery of new economic development and the creation of jobs is a key element of the Government’s growth strategy to bring about the economic recovery and the Council should therefore be looking to facilitate new economic growth and employment opportunities in a proactive and positive way through its Local Plan. Major new development such as that which could be accommodated on land to the south of Fellgate could significantly boost the range and type of employment opportunities within the District. This would not only help to address unemployment but could also help reduce out commuting to adjoining towns and cities and thereby help to create more sustainable patterns of development, which is a central tenet of the guidance in the NPPF. We feel that if possible the Council should be looking to meet the needs of its own working population within the District rather than them having to travel outside of South Tyneside to go to work. The future economic strategy for the borough needs to ensure alignment with the Miss Caroline Strugnell IO/QD/36 housing requirement, such that the projections of working age population who Planning Manager are economically active in South Tyneside are able to find adequate housing Bellway Homes (NE) Ltd within the borough. Additional housing is essential to support economic growth. An under-provision of housing relative to the number of jobs to be created would inevitably lead to higher rates of in-commuting which may be contrary to other objectives of the plan if not addressed effectively. This point relates to both Options A and B. We would strongly support a flexible approach to the use of existing employment and industrial sites for housing where the benefits of this would outweigh the loss of business space (D). This is consistent with the NPPF's presumption in favour of sustainable development. It will also help in achieving housing targets and other housing policy objectives whilst ensuring that employment is directed to the most suitable and viable sites. As identified above, the NPPF requires that local planning authorities meet their Mr Nicholas Graham IO/QD/37 objectively assessed needs in full. As such, our client supports Option 3a that the Senior Planner Council should plan to provide sufficient employment land to meet the Borough’s Nathaniel Lichfield & full economic growth requirements. Such a strategy will be important to ensure Partners – on behalf of that the Local Plan is effective, consistent with national planning policy and hence LNMPH Property Holdings sound. Limited However, we note that there is a wide disparity between the lower and upper job growth figures of 7,000 and 14,000 dwellings. These respective figures will have significantly different implications in terms of the scale of employment land and premises required. It will therefore be important for the Council to undertake a thorough assessment of its needs such that the scale of the developments which needs to be accommodated by the Local Plan can be accurately defined. Our client notes Option 2b, which suggests that some of the Borough’s economic development needs could be delivered in adjacent authorities such as Gateshead, Newcastle and Sunderland, allowing out-commuting from South Tyneside to those areas. Given the need for the Borough to accommodate its own needs in full, such a strategy could only be justified if it is not possible for South Tyneside to sustainably accommodate its needs within its own boundaries. It would also be dependent upon the scale of employment land to be delivered in those authorities and the willingness of those authorities to accommodate South Tyneside’s unmet needs, as well as their own. There is no evidence at present through the Duty to Cooperate that these authorities will do so. There is therefore a great deal of uncertainty around this issue given that: a the scale of South Tyneside’s economic development needs remain undefined; b the opportunities available within the Borough to accommodate those needs is unknown; c the scale of employment land delivery in the surrounding authorities is
41
unknown; d the political “will” to accommodate South Tyneside’s unmet housing needs is uncertain. As such, our client reserve the right to comment further on this issue until a later date. However, the key aim should be to deliver new homes and jobs alongside and in close proximity to each other, and that a significant disconnect between the delivery of each may be unsustainable. Our client supports Option 2c that the Local Plan should aim to attract big new multi-national businesses to locate in the Borough. Doing so will provide major benefits to South Tyneside in terms of economic growth, particularly the creation of new jobs. In doing so, it will be important to ensure that other elements of the Local Plan (such as housing and infrastructure delivery) are aligned with the Plans economic objectives. Our client supports Option 4d. The NPPF sets out that at paragraph 22 that: "Planning policies should avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no prospect of a site being used for that purpose. Land allocations should be regularly reviewed. Where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for the allocated employment use, applications for alternative uses should be treated on their merits having regard to market signals and the relative need for different land uses to support sustainable local communities.” The Local Plan should be prepared such that it is consistent with the above. The local plan should avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for Miss Samantha Nicholls IO/QD/38 employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for Planning Director that purpose. In accordance with paragraph 22 of the National Planning Policy Leith Planning Limited – on framework behalf of MMC Developments Limited
42
Regeneration and Shopping Centres
Quick Question 2: What types of shops and other facilities do you think are not well provided and that you would like to see planned for in the shopping centres nearest to where you live? (Please tell us the area you live and which shopping centres you’re referring to) Response Respondent Ref. No.
Whitburn pretty good shopping in the village and Morrison’s make it difficult for Mrs D Bolam IO/QL/4 any new shops in the village We do not want more charity, mobile phone or bookmaker shops. South Shields [Anon] IO/QL/5 town centre. Copy the retail world on team valley ? Hebburn has a shopping centre that is a Mr Brendan Abbott IO/QL/6 laughing stock developing retail outlets will provide more jobs than little mini factories that are often are businesses relocating Sports clothing, furniture and soft furnishings outlets, more places such as Crafty [Anon] IO/QL/8 Corner within shopping areas Local businesses made more sustainable by rates breaks, and with easier access to Mr Tom Tweddell IO/QL/9 public spending contracts SOCIALCLAUSES Fellgate. Marks and Spencer (or similar) in Jarrow Town Centre Peter Vincent Dale IO/QL/13
White goods, quality stores for food and clothing. (I live within 5 mins of S/S town [Anon] IO/QL/14 centre) Free parking first and foremost. Covered in centre or King Street covered. Get it Denise Bentham IO/QL/15 immaculate and keep it like that and only allow visually attractive shop fronts. Do not get any more buildings like the BT carbuncle Nothing specific -but more variety please - too many bookmakers, charity and [Anon] IO/QL/16 mobile phone shops Primrose / Jarrow. I would advise that Primrose stores and PO is excellent. As is Mr Duncan Anderson IO/QL/17 Jarrow Viking Centre. But unfortunately there are some things that I have had to go elsewhere for such as local food and drinks in Fenwicks, curtains in Grainger Market, photography at Boots etc in Newcastle. I even had to go to the Metro Centre and Newcastle to consider a replacement shower recently. But above all, Jarrow Shopping Centre and Primrose Stores / PO are fine for me Central Jarrow / Viking Precinct. There is not enough public toilets Mrs Sylvia Hepburn IO/QL/18
Cleadon Vale, South Shields. Parking is a major issue on Prince Edward Road due Miss Scott IO/QL/19 to parking restrictions. Many now park on our estate, which would be fine if they had not built the roads so narrow! Good selection of shops but too many takeaways Local trades should be encouraged, butchers, green grocers, bakery. Bookies Alan Daw IO/QL/20 should be discouraged, gambling is a disaster for many families, employs few and Beacon Heating extracts finance from the local economy Local shops no retail chains [Anon] IO/QL/22 Whitburn. South Shields Town Centre. Butchers, independent hardware store, [Anon] IO/QL/23 larger clothing shops (eg M&S, BHS), fishmonger Cleadon Park, South Shields, Nook. Linen and general stores, haberdashery, Mr Joseph Bourke IO/QL/25 pottery! I would like the area from the market down to the riverside left open with no [Anon] IO/QL/26 buildings (maybe cafes/ice cream parlours) but definitely no offices!!! Chichester / Rekendyke / Laygate. Town Centre needs a better cafe culture. Less [Anon] IO/QL/29 card and phone and charity shops and bookmakers. More galleries, craft, art shops, book shops. More high end or department stores. More market stalls, but not the continental one!
43
Jarrow shopping centre is always trying to provide new shops by dividing up larger Roz Slater IO/QL/31 premises to make them more price available to retailers Jarrow. Viking shopping arcade. I.T. facilities, dentists, opticians etc Mr P Nicholas IO/QL/32
Jarrow. Restaurants, more high street retailers Mr Phil Castiaux IO/QL/33
Commercial Road, South Shields. To get people to shop in South Shields town [Anon] IO/QL/34 centre you must provide free parking and more specialised shops i.e. Stationers, gadget shops, boutiques not 2nd hand shops or more bookmakers Super market and a variety small outlets which Hebburn is badly in need of, [Anon] IO/QL/35 prevent second hand shops and restrict charity shops in our centres More well known chains would make Jarrow precinct a more desirable place to [Anon] IO/QL/37 spend time. These companies would be more likely to expect high standards from their staff & as such from their customers. There are too many budget stores attracting rough people who hang around too much & behave in ways which make others avoid shopping there. Better use of market to bring people in - fresh fish shop - nice coffee shop - empty [Anon] IO/QL/41 shops - flowers - crafts - DIY - lack of unusual shops selling interesting items. Cheaper long term parking would mean stay longer! Twin with North Shields - Quay etc Harton Village. The Post Office is a huge miss! Would like to see an improved [Anon] IO/QL/42 bakery and delicatessen selling British cheeses etc. Promoting Great Britain's produce Harton - The Nook and Harton Village. Too many takeaway shops, not enough Mr Chris Chaganis IO/QL/44 good quality shops i.e. Good bakery, butcher, delicatessen Custom Bags Roman Road, South Shields. I shop in King Street. We need local shops there is no Mrs Pat Schaeffer IO/QL/45 butcher now and Thompsons electric next to McDonalds has closed we need more little shops like them. No more bookies, we are already turning into a gambling town Cleadon Park. We have a good shopping area Mrs Angela Mitchell IO/QL/46 Primrose Jarrow and Jarrow Town Centre (nearest Town Centre). I think a youth [Anon] IO/QL/47 club within a shopping area would be a good thing, this would give children something to do as they cause bother in other areas South Shields. Electrical shops. Department stores Mr Stidolph IO/QL/48 I live in Cleadon Village. There is no shortage of shops locally nor within fairly David Williams IO/QL/49 easy reach. Recreational facilities and good environments are what we need. Charity shops that have LOW PRICES for poorer people in the town. [Anon] IO/QL/50 John Clay Estate Chichester. Leisure facilities in Town Centre Cllr. James Foreman IO/QL/51 Town Centre. Indoor leisure facilities for teenagers / children [Anon] IO/QL/52 - Small shops / businesses should be given priority over multinationals / [Anon] IO/QL/53 supermarkets and pop-ups of pound shops. - Area set aside for market - most shops / businesses start up as market stalls. - Subsidise rents provided on leases over 6 months. - Sustain Hebburn. Need a larger supermarket stocking a variety of items - provisions / [Anon] IO/QL/56 homeware / clothing, instead of the bits and pieces currently in situ The council does not own / run shops etc or employ staff etc in these. Too many [Anon] IO/QL/57 regulations etc to make it worthwhile to own a business (ask shopkeepers, employers)
44
Detailed Question 4: Regenerating our Town and District Shopping Centres. What types of shops and other facilities would you like to see planned for in the shopping centres nearest to where you live? (please tell us which area of the borough you live in and which of the borough’s shopping centres you’re referring to) Response Respondent Ref. No.
My son lives in Paderborn in Germany and the main street has upper floor space Mr John Boak IO/QD/4 just like our King Street but it is filled with housing e.g flats, apartments, this give the place a feeling of being alive. Think the Regeneration of Hebburn has taken the back burner with South Mr Leslie Michael Brown IO/QD/9 Tyneside Council and with them also announcing the Regeneration of South Shields Town Centre (365). I know Tesco and Asda have pulled out of Hebburn. But I think Aldi should of been allowed planning permission to open a store in Hebburn but they were refused planning permission. Every other town within South Tyneside has a large Supermarket except Hebburn. This is why I think Hebburn is the Forgotten Town within the Council of this Borough of South Tyneside. There is no justification for another supermarket in South Shields town centre, Geoff Mound IO/QD/11 which seems to be the plan for the Post office site and behind, this will not improve the vitality of the area in anyway and is a knee jerk reaction to trying to keep the town centre vibrant, much more thought is needed on what would make people want to shop in South Shields rather than elsewhere in the North East, it needs to offer something different/ a different experience from shopping elsewhere. Option C needs to be carefully balanced against the need to ensure a suitable Mr Joe Ridgeon IO/QD/14 residential amenity while allowing existing and future businesses to thrive. George F White LLP Forget South Shields , shop at Jarrow , Hebburn and Metro Centre . More car user Mr J W Turnbull IO/QD/17 friendly A supermarket that is open after 8.00pm [Anon] IO/QD/18 All shopping centres should have a good attractive diversity of facilities, which Gary Dawes IO/QD/19 encourages makes people want to visit more frequently. The Highways Agency has no particular option preference, but would generally be Ian Radley IO/QD/20 supportive of seeking to increase opportunities for people to live within the main Asset Manager centres as presented in Option C. Again the Agency would expect that a Highways Agency combination of the various options would provide the most effective approach for regenerating and improving the viability of town centres and the housing and employment opportunities, access to sustainable transport, services and facilities that they provide Pavements keep up to standard more and better seating areas public toilets. Shop Mrs Ann Irvine-Taylor IO/QD/21 owners should be encouraged to have less advertising boards on their windows giving a better aspect as to what the shop is selling. No more bookmakers Mr Raemond Lenderyou IO/QD/22
Royal Mail has the following freehold properties in South Tyneside: Janet Entwistle IO/QD/24 South Shields Crown Office and Delivery Office, Keppel Street, South Shields, Senior Consultant, Planning NE33 1AA (BE 2763) DTZ - on behalf of Royal Jarrow Delivery Office, Monkton Road, Jarrow, NE32 3AA (BE 2764) Mail Group Both of these properties are currently operational and Royal Mail Group currently has no plans to close or relocate them. Royal Mail Group supports the Councils aims to regenerate District and Town Shopping Centres [Q4, response C]. The two Royal Mail Group Delivery Offices that are located within South Tyneside (as listed above), are located within town centre locations. The Council’s support is vital to ensure their retention and continued ability to function in these areas, so that they can continue to comply with the statutory duty to maintain a ‘universal service’ for the UK pursuant to the Postal Services Act 2000. It should be noted that, the introduction of residential development in close 45 proximity to a Royal Mail Delivery Office may result in noise complaints from new residents and sanctions being imposed on the Delivery Office. Accordingly, we request that the following criterion should be included in any policy relating to the promotion of residential development in town centres, as follows: “Residential development proposals will be resisted where these may be incompatible with existing uses, particularly in relation to their sensitivity to noise.” Rents and rates in both King Street and Fowler Street are too high. Parts of Mrs H McCallion IO/QD/27 Fowler Street are starting to look like another Frederick Street. Landlords are being allowed to neglect the properties. The change in shopping trends has been identified above (especially internet). Mr Kevin Broadbent IO/QD/29 How far this will go is uncertain but clearly the types and numbers of shops available will need to change, perhaps even shrinking the centres to make them more viable, and increasing residential within and on the fringes to make them more accessible and sustainable. Businesses in locations such as Fowler Street, Queen Street, Westoe Road and Beach Road could possibly be incentivised to move within the centre and revert / redevelop the properties to residential? South Shields is important, but not the only shopping area. A tiered approach to Mrs Gillan Gibson IO/QD/30 retail is appropriate to bring facilities to localities where people live (and work) to Campaign to Protect Rural reduce the need to travel and have all areas of the Borough with vitality England There will always be a strong pull towards the main retail centres of Newcastle, Barbara Hooper IO/QD/34 Sunderland and the Metro Centre. The emerging policies should be based upon National Trust evidence which explores the full range of options for the town centres to support their viability and vitality, which may not necessarily to be to try to compete with far larger retail centres nearby, but to consider alternative and diverse retails opportunities. While we recognise that main leisure facilities may be best located in South Shields, this should not preclude leisure opportunities in the other centres, to ensure choice and opportunity for local communities. We appreciate that there may be a need to restrict numbers of cafes, restaurants and hot food takeaways, but this may limit outlets offering healthy choices, and there may therefore need to be more refinement of this type of spatial allocation. Mindful of the requirements of the NPPF, it is important that new shopping and Mr Nicholas Graham IO/QD/37 leisure provision is provided in sustainable locations. Decisions regarding where Senior Planner such development should be located must involve considerations regarding the Nathaniel Lichfield & scale of demand for such facilities in particular locations, where they can be Partners – on behalf of sustainably accessed by local residents. At this stage, given the lack of any LNMPH Property Holdings evidence regarding the scale or form of the Borough’s shopping and leisure needs, Limited it is not possible to comment on where such development should be located, other than to say that any policies in this regard must be consistent with those in the NPPF. As such, our client reserve the right to provide comments in respect of Option 4a, 4b, 4d, 4e and 4f at a later date. Option 4c proposes to plan for more people to live within town centres. We highlight the requirement at paragraph 50 of the NPPF that local planning authorities should: “…identify the size, type, tenure and range of housing that is required in particular locations, reflecting local demand…” (NLP emphasis). The key consideration is therefore to increase opportunities for home ownership by delivering: a The size, type, tenure and range of housing which prospective occupiers aspire to; and b New homes in location in areas where there is demand. It will therefore be important to undertake a thorough assessment regarding the demand for new housing throughout the Borough. Our client reserves the right to comment further in this regard until such an up-to-date assessment has been undertaken.
46
Where should Development Happen? Brownfield and Greenfield Land and the Green Belt
Detailed Question 5: ‘Brownfield’ and ‘Greenfield’ Land Response Respondent Ref. No.
Although PDL development should be prioritised there are occasions when it will David Hall IO/QD/6 be necessary to release greenfield sites, this should be only when alternatives have been explored. However it may be more pressing in the short term as the economy continues to struggle.
More one bedroom properties should be thought about in respects to this Mr Leslie Michael Brown IO/QD/9 Bedroom Tax. RE QA - sustainable viable sites should come first to accelerate delivery whether Mr Steve Willcock IO/QD/10 brown or green. RE QB - Ditto. RE QC - land ownership and delivery disaster in the Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd making. RE QD - see response to QA There is far more green belt than is needed in South Tyneside and thus some Geoff Mound IO/QD/11 sensitive redesignation could provide all the extra housing land South Tyneside needs. This idea that green belt is sacrosanct no matter what the quality or current contribution to quality of life is, is not good planning.
The primary objective of the Highways Agency is to ensure the safe and efficient Ian Radley IO/QD/20 operation of the Strategic Road Network, so the Agency would encourage Asset Manager development to be focused in locations, which offer the maximum opportunity Highways Agency for people to travel by sustainable modes of transport thereby helping to reduce the need to travel by private car. Whilst the preference would be to focus on the development of previously developed brownfield sites, as such sites are more likely to be located in existing urban areas where the level of accessibility by sustainable modes is greatest, this is not always the case and therefore each site should be assessed on its own merits. The Agency also recognises that the current economic climate has had a detrimental impact on the availability of funding and the ability to deliver and redevelop brownfield sites making them a less viable option. Whilst the aim should ideally be to focus on the regeneration of brownfield sites, it is expected that an element of Greenfield development will be required. Again, the Agency will be able to provide further detailed comment as the strategy is developed and sites are identified By using the economic state of the nation to enhance the opportunities to use Mrs Ann Irvine-Taylor IO/QD/21 greenfield sites is cheap and should be discouraged. We have to look to the needs of the boroughs next generation open space around this borough makes South Tyneside a very diverse borough sea and country. The Council must be able to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply with and James Reid (Strategic Land IO/QD/23 additional 5% buffer (20% if LPA has persistently under-delivered). Many Buyer) brownfield sites are unviable in the current economic climate and the Council has Barratt & David Wilson to consider greenfield development if it is to meet the needs of its people. Homes North East Our greenfield sites should be protected at all costs. It takes many years to build Miss Lynn Henderson IO/QD/28 up eco-systems and thinking these can be replaced by turning some brownfield sites into new open spaces is naive at best. Tend to agree with D but need guarantees on this as I guess the Council will Mr Kevin Broadbent IO/QD/29 always say the economic conditions are not sufficient to deal with the brownfield sites, there is always something else to spend money on. As a minimum the Green Belt must be strongly protected. Whilst there is a strong Mrs Gillan Gibson IO/QD/30 preference for reuse of brownfield sites which have developed into valuable Campaign to Protect Rural wildlife areas should be protected. A reassessment of sites would be an England appropriate part of developing the new Plan Greenfield development should be allowed to help promote the area in terms of Mr John Briggs IO/QD/31 employment, regeneration and industrial uses. Owen Pugh Aggregates Ltd Greenfield site development should be permitted to meet the needs for future Mr John Briggs IO/QD/32 regeneration, employment, industry, housing etc needs of the region Owen Pugh Aggregates 47
The overall biodiversity and amenity value of sites should be assessed rather than Nick Sandford IO/QD/33 adopting a simple brownfield vs greenfield distinction. Some brownfield sites may The Woodland Trust over time develop a significant level of biodiversity and provide a range or wildlife habitats We would wish to see any policy which proposes releasing greenfield sites in Barbara Hooper IO/QD/34 favour of contaminated brownfield land firmly supported by clear evidence, as we National Trust feel that this could set a precedent which would be difficult to reverse. The cost of decontaminating a site will always force up the cost of redevelopment, and may therefore always be quoted as a reason not to develop in favour of a greenfield site. We would wish to see all alternative options explored (with evidence from experience elsewhere, both from this country and abroad), in terms of meeting the costs of decontamination, or considering alternative uses for contaminated sites. We feel that a balance should be struck between the development of brownfield Mr John Pearce IO/QD/35 and greenfield land, and that as a consequence the Council should not look to Senior Planner place arbitrary restrictions on the development of greenfield land before Barton Willmore – on behalf brownfield land is developed. The Council acknowledge in the text on page 9 of of Church Commissioners the Issues and Options consultation that some brownfield land is so contaminated that remediating it would make it economically or financially unviable for future development. As such, the Council should look to identify a portfolio of sites that includes both brownfield and greenfield sites, and to identify which of these are to be developed for specific uses. On the whole we tend to agree that development should be allowed on lower quality ‘greenfield’ sites that do not perform much purposeful function. The Council would first need to assess whether a site performed a useful purposeful function or not and if a site did then it would not be considered suitable for development. Conversely, those sites that were not considered to perform a purposeful function may be considered suitable for development although clearly some would be more sustainable than others and it should be these that would in our view be suitable for development first. It is not clear from the text what constitutes a ‘purposeful function’ although any assessment of the suitability of greenfield sites would need to look at a number of different factors to determine its suitability or not for development. We note that any lower quality greenfield site that was developed for housing would need to incorporate an element of public open space, which would address the Council’s concern about the availability of public open to meet local recreational needs and where necessary replace existing open space where this is to be developed. We disagree with the option that if development on greenfield land is permitted, alternative brownfield land should be turned into new open space to compensate. Alternative brownfield land may not be owned by the developer and therefore this would not be feasible. Furthermore, even if the developer did own brownfield land that could be turned into open space, this may not be in the right location or could be surrounded by in appropriate uses i.e. It could be located in the middle of an existing employment area away from residential properties. This approach may not therefore be very practical in reality. We strongly agree with the Council’s statement that some development should be permitted on greenfield land in the short term to help meet both housing and employment needs until the economic situation improves as this will be essential to stimulate the economic recovery and bring about the early delivery of new housing. Guidance in paragraph 159 of the NPPF states that local planning authorities should prepare a SHLAA to establish realistic assumptions about the availability, suitability and the likely economic viability of land to meet the identified need for housing during the Plan Period. The Council, having once prepared their SHLAA will be able to determine which sites it considers suitable for development based on their assessment of available sites. If a site is not considered available, suitable and viable then it should be omitted from the list of potential allocations, whilst those that are assessed as suitable could be considered for development. The SHLAA has been updated regularly to date and any future assessment of contaminated brownfield sites will enable these to be reconsidered for suitability for development at the requisite time. In the
48 meantime, if greenfield sites are considered suitable in the SHLAA, these should not be discounted as potential development sites just because of the existence of other brownfield sites that are not currently available, suitable and viable. We strongly agree with Options B and D which will support new housing delivery Miss Caroline Strugnell IO/QD/36 in the borough and help to ensure a 5 year supply of housing is maintained. In Planning Manager particular the Council should consider the benefits of developing underused / Bellway Homes (NE) Ltd poorer quality recreational space where its redevelopment can assist in enhancing the quality / quantity of provision elsewhere in the Borough. We strongly disagree with Option A as complete reliance on brownfield sites will not provide certainty of housing delivery. This approach is not consistent with the NPPF which emphasises the need to ensure a continuous supply of housing and contains no such 'brownfield before greenfield' presumption. We would caution against Option C. Any such approach would need to satisfy the tests of regulation 122 of the 2010 CIL regulations. Where implementation would necessitate involvement of 3rd party land such a policy may undeliverable in practice. The NPPF states at paragraph 111 that: Mr Nicholas Graham IO/QD/37 “Planning policies and decisions should encourage the effective use of land by Senior Planner reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that Nathaniel Lichfield & it is not of high environmental value.” Partners – on behalf of As such, whilst the NPPF encourages the re-use of brownfield land, it does not LNMPH Property Holdings prescribe that brownfield land must be redeveloped before the development of Limited greenfield land. Rather, the overriding consideration is that full, objectively assessed housing needs are met and that local planning authorities aim to “…boost significantly…” the supply of housing. Moreover, the NPPF states at paragraph 15 that: “Policies in Local Plans should follow the approach of the presumption in favour of sustainable development so that it is clear that development which is sustainable can be approved without delay.” (NLP emphasis) As such, if the sustainable development of greenfield land is required to meet needs, the withholding of planning permission for such development would be in conflict with the NPPF and therefore unsound. Our client therefore objects to Option 5a, which proposes that brownfield land is redeveloped before the release of greenfield land. Such a strategy would be in direct conflict with the above mentioned requirements of the NPPF if the amount of deliverable brownfield land is insufficient to meet the Borough’s needs. Conversely, our client supports Option 5d, which would enable the delivery of development on greenfield land if there is a shortage of deliverable brownfield land – such a strategy would be wholly consistent with the NPPF. For the above reasons, our client also supports Option 5b, that “some” development should be allowed on lower quality greenfield land. However, as with the above, the primary consideration is to ensure that there is sufficient deliverable land to meet needs, regardless of whether that land is brownfield or greenfield in status. Our client objects to Option 5c, that greenfield development should only be allowed if brownfield land is turned into new open spaces to compensate. Whilst our client does not disagree with the aim of regenerating brownfield land for open spaces uses, the primary consideration is ensuring that development needs are met. As such, if there is a need for development on greenfield land to meet needs, the Local Plan should not establish policies which have the effect that the grant of planning permission for such development is subject to the delivery of open space on brownfield land, unless the development proposed would otherwise be unsustainable. The proposed development of land at Ellison Street involves the re-use of a Miss Samantha Nicholls IO/QD/38 brownfield previously developed site Planning Director Leith Planning Limited – on behalf of MMC Developments Limited
49
Quick Question 4: What are your thoughts on potentially releasing some land from the Green Belt to help meet our future development needs? Response Respondent Ref. No.
No building on green field until every inch of brownfield has been used Mrs D Bolam IO/QL/4 Hebburn has precious little green field sites now as it is what we need is planners Mr Brendan Abbott IO/QL/6 who are brave and will challenge the status quo visit Houghton country park where Sunderland city council can be rightly proud of what they provide there for the thousands of visitors every day
Fine as long as drainage issues addressed to prevent flood plains issues [Anon] IO/QL/8 If it has to be done for different reasons, let it be sensible and not the usual MR TOM TWEDDELL IO/QL/9 mismatch development of small sites we have seen over the last few years SOCIALCLAUSES Village rounding (Option A) is preferable over large scale Green Belt development Mr Bates O'Keefe IO/QL/11 - to help meet housing need, protect the countryside and sustain services and amenities.
Not if it can be avoided Mr. Anthony Purvis IO/QL/12 Priory Court (South Shields) Residents Association Ltd. Preferable to develop greenfield sites for housing - NOT industrial development Peter Vincent Dale IO/QL/13 Firstly my view is that commercial uses should be focussed on town centres, and [Anon] IO/QL/14 the only reason for large scale development on greenfield should be to accommodate a significant employer. Other than this limited amounts of green field could acceptably be released to build houses.
Do not do it. We don't have much. Denise Bentham IO/QL/15 No need to build on green belt land if all the existing brown field land was sorted IO/QL/16 for development - Hawthorn Leslies Hebburn for example. There would appear to be very little green belt land as Hebburn, Jarrow and South Mr Duncan Anderson IO/QL/17 Shields are virtually linked into one another while the Boldons, Cleadon and Whitburn are literally separate places. The only real green belt appears to lie in the south. Therefore the green belt needs to remain as it is. And there is surely plenty of brownfield and green places that could easily be built on such as east of Bedeburn Road, over the Tyne Tunnel, and at Springwell Road / Cemetery Bank in Jarrow I think if the greenbelt land is in a poor state and of no use, then it should be used Mrs Sylvia Hepburn IO/QL/18 allowing plenty of space for children's play areas I disagree with building on our greenbelt full stop. We have plenty unused Miss Scott IO/QL/19 factories in Boldon and many run-down buildings / spaces in Hebburn. A number of estates need upgrading not new ones built Green belt land should only be released for development as a last resort. It [Anon] IO/QL/23 should be protected for as long as possible Under no circumstances should the green belt be used for any development. Why R Smith, B S, M J Lindsay, IO/QL/24 wasn't a (four) choice included above to say that? M Thompson Fellgate and Hedworth residents will oppose any move on to the green belt as Fellgate / Hedworth they have consistently done over the past thirty five years. The vast majority of Residents residents bought their properties next to the green belt to escape from town dwelling to a more rural area, but not too far from their places of work. Hedworth and Fellgate serves this purpose admirably. Residents value highly the quality of life living next to the green belt and are supported in this by Boldon and Cleadon residents in particular and others across South Tyneside. We note that in your pamphlet entitled 'Planning the Future of South Tyneside' question 4 you do not include the negative choice of no encroachment on the green belt for whatever purpose. For this reason we ask
50 that this document be withdrawn and be reissued so that citizens can record their opposition to your proposals. Can we also remind you of the promise made by the Leader of the council after the business park debacle of 2008, when he said "we have listened to the people and nothing will be built on this land as long as this administration is in place". Why are you therefore inviting options on building on green belt land when it is clearly contrary to council policy? This is jolly good, new and old makes problems in our skilled settlement thou very Mr Joseph Bourke IO/QL/25 attractive in all desires No building on green belt areas at all, there are enough brownfield sites and these [Anon] IO/QL/26 need to be utilised as most are a blot on the landscape. Use brown field or do nothing but don't build on green field sites [Anon] IO/QL/28 NO! We need more green areas, not less. Green is important for recreation, [Anon] IO/QL/29 happiness, cleanliness and environment No green belt sites should ever be built on. Regenerate areas that are unused and Roz Slater IO/QL/31 out of date and in poor condition There are plenty of brownfield sites empty that should be utilised first. With [Anon] IO/QL/34 global warming we need green areas and better drainage to prevent flooding Only in the most special of circumstances [Anon] IO/QL/35 No way [Anon] IO/QL/38 Questions 'B' and 'C' are impossible to answer because there is no information as Mr John Howard Wright IO/QL/40 to the viability or otherwise of these two types of site e.g. Where are the 'contaminated' brownfield sites? Look at other cities e.g. Liverpool and see how key home used port areas / docks - [Anon] IO/QL/41 old buildings - for housing rather than take more green belt Would be against losing green belt land [Anon] IO/QL/42 No building on green belt land [Anon] IO/QL/43 Last resort to utilise for building. If eventually needed, then good housing, Mr Chris Chaganis IO/QL/44 garages, and off road parking. But keep large gardens to prevent threat of Custom Bags flooding There is no need because there are plenty empty buildings and spare ground Mrs Pat Schaeffer IO/QL/45 available A bad idea once built upon is usually lost for forever making the town less Mrs Angela Mitchell IO/QL/46 attractive we need more small green spaces in the town I do not think this is something that needs to be done as there are lots of unused [Anon] IO/QL/47 buildings that could be used for development in the future i.e. Jarrow Police Station now unused and already been vandalised by bored children Green Belt has already been eroded locally since it was established. This should David Williams IO/QL/49 stop, as it can never be replaced. ANY building on green belt land should belong to the Council/Government NOT [Anon] IO/QL/50 private owners! Small plots rather than larger plots to be used for housing Cllr. James Foreman IO/QL/51 None. Do not build on greenfield sites. Bring back tennis courts and organise [Anon] IO/QL/52 children / teenagers tuition - Do not develop Greenfield sites until all brownfield sites are exhausted - [Anon] IO/QL/53 financial considerations should not form part of the land use planning process. - 400,000 housing lots in UK already have planning perm. - This policy is as a direct result of ea Natural beauty spots should be protected including riverside and beach areas [Anon] IO/QL/54
51
Only release green belt for housing. Too many empty shops and empty units on [Anon] IO/QL/56 current industrial estates, do not need more I strongly disagree with any of the options given above, and wonder why an Mr and Mrs Lindsay IO/QL/60 option stating just that was not included in your survey, instead of being given just the options you as a council would prefer
Detailed Question 6: Green Belt Land Response Respondent Ref. No.
Green Belt development should be avoided unless there are no alternative sites. David Hall IO/QD/6 Any Green Belt release should be compensated by new designations elsewhere. RE QC - this would decelerate development. RE QD - sustainable and viable sites Mr Steve Willcock IO/QD/10 with limited impact on openness should be a priority. RE QE - strong support for Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd this option. This option lends itself towards bringing forward sustainable sites that are viable i.e. Good market areas. RE QG - viability questionable. RE QH - imposes unnecessary constraints on site selection whilst S Tyneside is already physically constrained When reviewing the Green Belt boundaries, paragraph 84 of the NPPF should be Mr Joe Ridgeon IO/QD/14 taken into account. George F White LLP We do not wish our greenbelt on Fellgate to be destroyed by building houses or [Anon] IO/QD/16 any other proposed developments. We choose to live in semi rural surroundings and this choice should not be taken away from us, at any cost. The questions in this section are weighted in favour of development of green belt Mr J W Turnbull IO/QD/17 if the council considers there is no alternative. I strongly oppose any development of green belt As stated above, the Highways Agency's general preference would be to focus Ian Radley IO/QD/20 new development towards previously developed brownfield sites, given that such Asset Manager sites tend to be located in existing urban areas with higher levels of sustainable Highways Agency accessibility. However, the Agency acknowledges that this is not always the case and therefore again each site should be assessed on its own merits. Whilst the aim should ideally be to focus on the regeneration of brownfield sites, it is expected that an element of Greenfield development will be required. As to whether such sites would be detrimental from a transport impact perspective and therefore at this stage in principle Option C or F would generally be preferred These questions are a bit loaded and therefore can be manipulated to enhance Mrs Ann Irvine-Taylor IO/QD/21 development on greenfield saying the survey said be careful you do not trip yourselves up. The NPPF quite clearly recognises the need to release greenfield land if viable James Reid (Strategic Land IO/QD/23 brownfield sites are not available. BDW particularly supports Statement B, which Buyer) we feel mirrors NPPF policy. Barratt & David Wilson Homes North East Don't believe there should be any development on Green Belt land at all. This is Miss Lynn Henderson IO/QD/28 already at risk and has been "sold out" e.g. The development of Sunderland FC training ground. The ratio of greenbelt land to developed land is probable already much lower in Mr Kevin Broadbent IO/QD/29 ST than in most other parts of the UK. We can't take ST in isolation when it comes to providing for employment and homes, we have to acknowledge that people will move between ST and neighbouring districts, but this must be catered for more sustainably. Also, just as internet shopping has increased drastically and very quickly, the need for employment land in the future may also change drastically. The development of Green Belt must be resisted. Mrs Gillan Gibson IO/QD/30 Campaign to Protect Rural England 52
All development within the green belt should be permitted to meet the future Mr John Briggs IO/QD/31 needs of the region Owen Pugh Aggregates Ltd
Development within the green belt should be permitted to meet the future needs Mr John Briggs IO/QD/32 of the region, especially for industry and employment needs Owen Pugh Aggregates It is important to avoid any loss of greenbelt land which contains irreplaceable Nick Sandford IO/QD/33 habitats such as ancient woodland. We would like to see all South Tyneside The Woodland Trust residents have natural greenspace including woodland close to their home. We agree with the principle of the Green Belt, and would wish to see this Barbara Hooper IO/QD/34 protected. However, certain types of well designed development can be National Trust appropriate, and it may therefore be worth considering whether the principle should be to allow consideration of the design and type of development rather than a blanket 'catch-all' policy. These policies may therefore need to be supported by some strong principles ensuring good design and sustainability. We agree strongly that the need to provide sufficient new housing and Mr John Pearce IO/QD/35 employment to meet South Tyneside’s future population and economic growth Senior Planner requirements generally outweigh any adverse impacts of development in the Barton Willmore – on behalf Green Belt. Consequently, we also support the Council’s statement that they of Church Commissioners should plan for the managed release of some Green Belt land in sustainable locations where development would not unreasonably impact on the general openness and purposes of the Green Belt. The Inspector who dealt with the examination of the Site Allocations DPD commented in paragraph 15 of his report in respect of the Green Belt that: “However, the Council recognise that future development needs will be likely to necessitate a strategic review of the Green Belt through a new overarching Core Strategy". Furthermore, guidance in paragraph 83 of the NPPF states: "Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan. At that time, authorities should consider the Green Belt boundaries having regard to their intended permanence in the long term, so that they should be capable of enduring beyond the plan period". We therefore believe that this is the correct time for the Council to review their Green Belt boundaries in accordance with the guidance in the NPPF, noting the length of time that has now elapsed since it was last reviewed i.e. since the 1990s. We do not agree that development of Green Belt sites should be avoided until all economically viable ‘brownfield’ land within existing urban areas have redeveloped first. If this were to be the case, there could be a significant delay in bringing forward much needed new housing and employment development as we wait for the economy to improve in order to make development of such sites viable, bringing into question the delivery of the Council’s Spatial Strategy. Furthermore, this approach in our view would be contrary to the Government’s ‘Planning for Growth’ agenda and would not contribute to the economic recovery. In order to help the delivery of new development, we agree that some development should be permitted on Green Belt sites in sustainable locations around the edges of existing settlements. Guidance in paragraph 84 of the NPPF states that: “When drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries local planning authorities should take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development. They should consider the consequences for sustainable development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt or towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary.” (our underlining). The guidance suggests that those sites on the edge of the Green Belt adjacent to existing urban areas are likely to be considered as the most sustainable locations for new development. The Commissioners have submitted a number of their sites to both the Strategic Land Review and updated SHLAA, all of which are currently located in the Green Belt but adjacent to the existing urban area. We believe that
53 these sites are in sustainable locations and are sequentially preferable when looking at other potential sites or land to be released from the Green Belt for development. We support the option to allow some development in the Green Belt in sustainable locations around the edge of existing settlements where new development would help to enhance the economic viability and support the revival of village shops, post offices, pubs and other local businesses. Guidance in paragraph 55 of the NPPF, albeit relating to development in rural areas rather than Green Belt, states that new housing can help enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities, and this proposal would accord with the guidance. We are supportive in principle to the idea of creating a separate new settlement/village in the Green Belt. The NPPF at paragraph 52 states that the supply of new homes can sometimes be best achieved through planning for larger scale development such as new settlements or extensions to existing villages that follow the principles of Garden Cities. The nature of the Green Belt and corresponding gap between South Tyneside and Sunderland to the south is such that a free standing new settlement is not in our view going to be feasible. Notwithstanding this we do support the concept of extensions to existing urban areas and village within the District and as you are aware the Commissioners own significant amounts of land within the Green Belt between South Tyneside and Sunderland. We would of course be very interested in discussing with the Council their thoughts on the provision of sustainable urban extensions/new communities and investigating whether the Commissioners would be able to assist with the delivery of these. Whilst we are supportive of the need for the Council to review the Green Belt in order to determine whether land needs to be removed from it to accommodate its development needs over the Plan Period, we note that safeguarding Green Belt land is an option that was not included in the Issues and Options. Guidance at paragraph 85 of the NPPF states that: “When defining boundaries, local planning authorities should: Where necessary, identify in their plans areas of ‘safeguarded land’ between the urban area and the Green Belt, in order to meet longer-term development needs stretching well beyond the plan period;” Whilst it is acknowledged that safeguarded land is not allocated at the present time, it provides the Council flexibility when considering whether there is a need for further development land, particularly if there are questions over the delivery of other allocated sites or where the Council cannot demonstrate an up to date deliverable five year supply of housing. An early review of the Local Plan before the end of the Plan period could facilitate the release of safeguarded land if there was a demonstrable need for it. As such, we would suggest that identification of safeguarded land was considered as an option going forward to not only address any shortfall in the supply of land but also to provide land for longer term development needs beyond the Plan Period, thereby avoiding the need to alter Green Belt boundaries again at the end of the Plan Period and secure the permanence of Green Belt boundaries in the long term. The need to meet the objectively assessed need for housing and deliver economic Miss Caroline Strugnell IO/QD/36 growth can provide the 'exceptional circumstances' for releasing Green Belt land. Planning Manager The case for Green Belt release on this basis is being put forward by other Bellway Homes (NE) Ltd authorities in the North East including Newcastle, Gateshead and County Durham. We consider that Options A, B, D, E and F, or a combination of these would all be appropriate with the appropriate sites to release being considered on their relative merits. Option G would represent an appropriate option if the projected shortfall in housing is sufficient to warrant the scale of development required to deliver a sustainable new town. The approach of Option H has some merit (and apparent government support in the form of a recent announcement by George Osborn) albeit a 'land swap' approach to Green Belt is not expressly required by the NPPF. We do not consider that Option D is appropriate. If it has been demonstrated that Green Belt land is needed, in particular to deliver 5 year housing requirements, then there should be no restrictions on the timing of its release.
54
The NPPF sets out that one of the key purposes of the Green Belt is: Mr Nicholas Graham IO/QD/37 “…to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas…” (NLP emphasis) Senior Planner The key word in the above quote is ‘unrestricted’. Considered carefully, it clearly Nathaniel Lichfield & indicates that the purpose of the Green Belt is to limit the amount of piecemeal Partners – on behalf of development which takes place outside of the established urban area and which LNMPH Property Holdings has not been comprehensively planned for through the Local Plan. Conversely, it Limited indicates that development in the Green Belt is appropriate if it is planned for through a Local Plan and is subject to restrictions (such as the establishment of a revised Green Belt boundary). Such an understanding is supported by the statement at paragraph 83 of the NPPF that it is appropriate to release land from the Green Belt in: “…exceptional circumstances, through the preparation of a Local Plan.” (NLP emphasis) It is therefore clear that it is not the purpose of the Green Belt to indefinitely prevent future growth requirements from being met. Rather, the release of land from the Green Belt is wholly justified and necessary, particularly where alternative options to meet development needs are highly constrained. Releasing land from the Green Belt and creating a new, defensible Green Belt boundary will mean that new development outside the established urban area is subject to limits; hence the “sprawl” of the urban area will be restricted. The Green Belt boundary in South Tyneside is drawn tightly around the edge of the urban area. Both the Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) and Employment Land Review (ELR) make clear that there are limited opportunities for new development on non-Green Belt sites. Indeed, we note the Council’s written statement to the examination of its Site Specific Allocations DPD that: “…it is not physically possible for the Borough to satisfy the RSS's combined housing and employment land allocation requirements (together with other land use needs), such that the DPD recognises the need for a strategic Green Belt review to enable longer-term needs to be accommodated.” For this reason, and mindful both of the above discussion regarding the NPPF Green Belt policies and the requirement to accommodate development needs in full, our client supports Options 6a, 6b, 6e and 6f. As discussed under Question 5 above, there is no sequential approach to the use of brownfield or greenfield land in the NPPF, and furthermore that development which is sustainable should be approved without delay. As such, our client objects to Option 5c. Our client also supports Option 5d. The redevelopment of major development sites within the Green Belt is an established principle of planning policy and is wholly consistent with the NPPF. Our client notes Option 6g regarding whether or not it would be better to plan for a separate new settlement in the Green Belt rather than adjoining the existing urban area. In this regard, we note the statement at paragraph 52 of the NPPF that: “The supply of new homes can sometimes be best achieved through planning fo larger scale development…”. And at paragraph 84 that, when reviewing Green Belt boundaries, local planning authorities should take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development. The Council will need to assess the implications of a Green Belt release in this context, mindful also of the suitability of particular parcels of land for development. We therefore reserve the right to comment regarding this issue until a later date. We note Option 6h. As we have discussed earlier in this Note, the key consideration is the accommodation of development needs. In South Tyneside, this will require the release of land from the Green Belt. The delivery of development on such land can be dependent upon the expansion of the Green Belt elsewhere within the Borough. Such a requirement could unnecessarily prejudice the delivery of new development, particularly given that there is no certainty that (a) land elsewhere within the Borough would comply with the 55 purposes of the Green Belt and (b) the extension of the Green Belt is necessary. In respect of undertaking a review of the Green Belt, we note that paragraph 83 of the NPPF states that: “Local planning authorities with Green Belts in their area should establish Green Belt boundaries in their Local Plans which set the framework for Green Belt and settlement policy.” As such, it is important that the proposed Green Belt review is undertaken at an early point within the Local Plan process, given that this will provide the framework for the Green Belt and settlement policy in the Borough. It will also be crucial to demonstrate that the Local Plan is able identify sufficient land to deliver the homes and jobs needed, as required by the NPPF at 156. The proposed development on land at Ellison Street involves the re-use of Miss Samantha Nicholls IO/QD/38 previously developed brownfield land Planning Director Leith Planning Limited – on behalf of MMC Developments Limited
56
Health, Recreation and Quality of Life
Detailed Question 7: Providing for Recreation and Leisure Opportunities Response Respondent Ref. No.
Leisure facilities should remain open in Hebburn. What with the Community Mr Leslie Michael Brown IO/QD/9 Centre closing and it has been mooted that the Swimming pool is closing. With the New pool in another town being recently opened. Again Hebburn is the Forgotten town At last questions that are good for the borough development for families. Mrs Ann Irvine-Taylor IO/QD/21 Artificial Grass Pitches offer the opportunity to accommodate a much greater David McGuire IO/QD/25 level of use across the year without the decline in quality suffered by grass Sport England pitches. However the Council would need to work closely with Sport England, the respective NGBs and the local leagues to explore what opportunities exist locally to transfer organised league-based activity from grass to AGP. Such opportunities will best be defined from grass-roots sport upwards rather than the other way round In principle B is a good idea but in such close proximity to dwellings, they would Mr Kevin Broadbent IO/QD/29 have to be more visually attractive than the picture you usually associate with allotments! Recreational/leisure land serves many purposes and is very important. All areas Mrs Gillan Gibson IO/QD/30 should have nearby provision. Campaign to Protect Rural England Replacement of natural surfaces with artificial/synthetic turf could have an Nick Sandford IO/QD/33 adverse impact on drainage and also increase temperatures in midsummer as The Woodland Trust such surfaces may reflect more heat back into the atmosphere rather than absorbing it These policies should also recognise that there may be additional options for Barbara Hooper IO/QD/34 sports provision which is currently underused. For example, schools may have National Trust pitches which would benefit from investment or upgrade, but which are not currently available to the wider community outside school hours. A more flexible approach to sports provision may maximise resources, allow vital investment where it is needed, and increase the level of choice and provision across the authority. As we have identified earlier, it is essential that the Local Plan includes policies Mr Nicholas Graham IO/QD/37 which will facilitate development to meet the full needs of the Borough. This Senior Planner includes the Borough’s needs throughout the plan period for new open spaces Nathaniel Lichfield & and sports facilities. We therefore supports Option 7a and 7d. Partners – on behalf of Our client notes Options 7b and 7c, which proposes that underused “backland” LNMPH Property Holdings sites in residential areas and lesser used parts of parks and open spaces should be Limited turned into allotment gardens. Our client does not disagree with this approach; however, it will be important for such an approach to be justified by robust evidence which demonstrates that (a) the land in question is not needed for its current purpose, (b) there is not a need for an alternative use besides allotments, and (c) that there is demand for the proposed allotments.
57
Sustainability and Transport
Detailed Question 8: Encouraging the Highest Qualities in Urban Design Response Respondent Ref. No.
High standards should be encouraged, being mindful of viability. Every David Hall IO/QD/6 opportunity should be offered to bring historic buildings back into use. QA - RE BFL - fine but must be viable / realistic / deliverable. RE CSH - leave to Mr Steve Willcock IO/QD/10 building regs. Object Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd This needs to be considered in the context of Governments review of housing Geoff Mound IO/QD/11 standards - these areas may not be in the purview of the planning system in the future. However, I agree that it is important to deliver good quality homes and would encourage the development of minimum space standards to prevent building tiny homes. Just look at Cleadon Park sad and dull design that will quickly look shabby I Mrs Ann Irvine-Taylor IO/QD/21 would only agree to historic buildings being used if they retained all aspects of the past we have lost so much of our local history we should be ashamed of ourselves With regard to Statement A, Barratt & David Wilson Homes insist on James Reid (Strategic Land IO/QD/23 implementing the highest quality design for each of our development projects. Buyer) The Council must not impose unnecessary planning obligations that may Barratt & David Wilson jeopardise the viability of sustainable development. Homes North East Must be careful to avoid the criteria for restoring buildings becoming so onerous Mr Kevin Broadbent IO/QD/29 that nobody is willing to undertake it so the building never gets restored or even falls down. South Tyneside has many fine buildings which deserve consideration, both in Mrs Gillan Gibson IO/QD/30 themselves and the setting around them. New developments must be of the Campaign to Protect Rural highest design standards appropriate to the setting. England We would like to see the Council adopt a policy of using tree planting as an Nick Sandford IO/QD/33 allowable solution for zero carbon homes. Such a policy has been adopted by The Woodland Trust several local authorities in their core strategies, most notably the North Northants JPU which is working in partnership with Rockingham Forest to help deliver the woodland creation needed. We strongly agree that historic buildings should be conserved and restored, with Barbara Hooper IO/QD/34 imaginative and new ways of bringing them to life. However, their significance National Trust should be recognised and conserved where possible. While the principle of going beyond minimum standards is commendable, our understanding is that the government is still committed to ensuring that all developments meet the highest standards for zero carbon buildings by 2016/18. The Council could instead consider setting wider targets for carbon reduction (which would encompass the wider implications of the development). We strongly disagree with the option of setting higher standards of building and Mr John Pearce IO/QD/35 environmental design than the minimum standards required by building Senior Planner regulations. Building regulations are being continually reviewed and requiring the Barton Willmore – on behalf achievement of ever increasing environmental performance standards in order to of Church Commissioners comply. We therefore do not feel the need to place additional controls or performance requirements on new development over and above those which need to be complied with anyway. The Government’s move towards zero-carbon development is being driven through building regulations and as such there is no need to duplicate the requirements in order to achieve sustainable design, which clearly has a resultant cost on developers in doing so and thereby affecting the viability of new development in current economic conditions. We would be grateful if you would take our comments into consideration and notify us of any further stages of consultation on the Local Plan. We have previously suggested coming to meet with both Andrea King and yourself and feel that now may be an appropriate time to do so in order to discuss the preparation of the Local Plan and specifically our Client’s sites and the potential consideration
58 of a new settlement. We will contact you in due course to suggest some possible meeting dates. In the meantime if you have any questions or need to discuss anything with us please do not hesitate to contact either Dan Hatcher or myself. We strongly disagree with Option A. In considering sustainable design, which is a Miss Caroline Strugnell IO/QD/36 central aspect of Bellway's product offer, we consider this is most appropriately Planning Manager secured through Building Regulations as opposed to planning. Indeed, the NPPF Bellway Homes (NE) Ltd provides guidance in this regard stating that (paragraph 95) when setting any local requirement for a building's sustainability Authorities should do so in a way consistent with nationally described standards. As such, through the Plan adopting local standards there is a real risk that these could be out of line with the national position - particularly given the 15 year timeline for the Plan. We are aware of other Local Planning Authorities in the North East who are moving towards Building Regulations to deliver design standards. Encouraging the highest qualities in urban design should be considered in Miss Samantha Nicholls IO/QD/38 conjunction with the viability of a scheme. The council should avoid onerous Planning Director sustainability requirements which would prevent development from coming Leith Planning Limited – on forward behalf of MMC Developments Limited
Detailed Question 9: Making the Most of our Natural Environmental Resources Response Respondent Ref. No.
We should plan for the future and make sure any resource - such as Marsden David Hall IO/QD/6 Quarry - is strongly protected. Wind turbines ? "Most valuable and sensitive natural and historic landscapes" Mr J W Turnbull IO/QD/17 what does this mean . It's ok to put one outside my home , but not in front of South Shields town hall? Solar power needs to be encouraged more for new buildings as it is much more Mr Kevin Broadbent IO/QD/29 difficult to persuade people to retrofit. Even with Government incentives I have not found it to be attractive to retrofit my property, rather invest the money elsewhere. Whilst alternative energy sources are desirable and to be encouraged, they Mrs Gillan Gibson IO/QD/30 frequently have negative effects which can render a development undesirable. Campaign to Protect Rural Wind turbines in particular can have very negative effects for local residents and England for the landscape.
Land should be safeguarded and made available for the future extension of Mr John Briggs IO/QD/31 quarries in the region because they play an important role in employment, Owen Pugh Aggregates Ltd regeneration, supply of construction aggregate, agricultural lime and brick shale. Land should be safeguarded and provided for the future extension to quarries as Mr John Briggs IO/QD/32 they supply important construction aggregates, agricultural lime and brick shale, Owen Pugh Aggregates as well as important employment, economic benefits and regeneration to the region Woodfuel should be included in consideration of options for renewable energy. A Nick Sandford IO/QD/33 diverse mix of renewables is usually best and woodfuel is a highly sustainable The Woodland Trust option if the wood used is obtained from sustainably managed woods We strongly endorse the push for renewable energy sources. The controversy Barbara Hooper IO/QD/34 which surrounds the visual impact of wind turbines means that the policy on this National Trust form of technology would need to be very carefully worded to ensure that it does not preclude appropriate use of this technology (for example, small scale turbines). While recognising the need to safeguard land for the future expansion of Marsden quarry, the National Trust is very aware of the impacts of coastal erosion on this area. There may be significant issues to be addressed within the period of the Local Plan on the coastal strip adjacent to the quarry (including the National Trust landholdings in the area), and the Council may need to consider re- 59 routing the A183 where it runs very close to the cliff edge. This may have implications for both the National Trust and the quarry, but may need considering early.
Detailed Question 10: Sustainable Transport and Good Accessibility for All Response Respondent Ref. No.
Ferry services are at present more than sufficient to meet demand and an Stephen Dodds IO/QD/3 increase in frequency would not be financially viable. Operating hours have Nexus reduced over the years because of poor demand. The reopening of the Leamside line has been the subject of feasibility studies and is not at present considered to be a physical or economically viable option. Land Use Development along the length of the line has not been objected to and therefore along with the huge restoration costs there would be extreme difficulties with developments which have been allowed to encroach on the boundaries. Funding permitting both the South Shields to Sunderland Metro link and the David Hall IO/QD/6 Leamside line projects should be pursued. The West Harton Mineral link has the potential to capture a huge number of passengers at Whiteleas/Boldon Lane and would provide a quick link to both towns for an area not well served by the Metro at the moment. The Leamside line should be safeguarded for both passenger and freight uses and with the potential of a Metro link to Washington explored. The opportunity to take freight from Nissan by rail should be encouraged. Re open the Passenger Ferry Service from Hebburn to Wallsend / Walker. Also Mr Leslie Michael Brown IO/QD/9 have a regular circular bus service serving all area's of Hebburn serving the town centre and metro. So far, there has been no mention of the poor state of the area's road surfaces. [Anon] IO/QD/18 Over many years the roads have been destroyed by the utility companies, with shoddy reinstatement attempts, and they have been allowed to do as they please. The condition of the roads hasn't largely been caused by the recent bad weather. In order to increase the level of cycling on the roads then decent surfaces must be produced. The UK must have the worst roads in western Europe, which is an embarrassment. It is vital that we plan and build now for much increased use of bicycles to Gary Dawes IO/QD/19 improve the economy and environment for all people. I would strongly encourage that STC endorse "Go Dutch" principals & apply to the borough. STC should adopt the principles of TFL's recent proposals and 10 year plan to significantly increase prioritisation of bicycles and adapt and apply. The Highways Agency welcomes the recognition that it is important to deliver Ian Radley IO/QD/20 sustainable patterns of development by locating new development in sustainably Asset Manager accessible locations, which can facilitate and encourage more sustainable means Highways Agency of transport to be utilised and maximised. The provision of a mixture of housing, employment and local amenities, located in areas which can be easily accessed by public transport can help to reduce the need to travel within the outside the borough by private car, and as a consequence can help to reduce the impact on the Strategic Road Network. The Agency is generally supportive of all the options proposed, as together these should all contribute towards the development of a sustainable transport network through the delivery of improvements to public transport services, such as the Metro, other public transport services and facilities, walking and cycling, as viable alternatives to the private car, which can help to reduce traffic impacts on the Strategic Road Network. Further, the implementation of improvements to rail freight infrastructure proposed in Option E would be welcomed, as it is recognised that this could help to reduce heavy goods traffic utilising the road network and particularly the Strategic Road Network for strategic movements I can not understand why the ferry is not more interactive with other parts of the Mrs Ann Irvine-Taylor IO/QD/21 river going to Gateshead and Newcastle by ferry would enhance the river and help traffic flow on our roads the people flow would be both ways .
60
Existing traffic calming measures and traffic management in the town appear to Miss Lynn Henderson IO/QD/28 have been done in a haphazard way and cause more congestion. Traffic management needs serious redesign and rethink as just sticking bollards and speed bumps in the road does not necessarily produce the desired results.
I'm sure the bus operators who already run frequent services between South Mr Kevin Broadbent IO/QD/29 Shields and Sunderland will strongly disagree. I think it is higher priority to invest in improving the quality and accessibility of the existing lines and stations, and accomplishing C. Whilst traffic management measures have their place there must also be plenty of Mrs Gillan Gibson IO/QD/30 suitable public transport, good cycle/walking routes, etc, to make not using a car Campaign to Protect Rural feasible England It is important to encourage sustainable transport provided that construction Nick Sandford IO/QD/33 does not damage important habitats such as ancient woodland The Woodland Trust It is not clear from Statement A whether the traffic management measures will Barbara Hooper IO/QD/34 include schemes to encourage people to use alternatives, rather than just the National Trust application of restrictions (which would be less effective). Option 7a and 7b propose measures to encourage travel by sustainable modes of Mr Nicholas Graham IO/QD/37 transport, rather than the private car. Our client supports these objectives, which Senior Planner are consistent with the NPPF and will help contribute to the wider sustainability of Nathaniel Lichfield & the Borough and the health of its residents. Partners – on behalf of Our client notes the proposals of Options 10c to 10f, which propose that the Local LNMPH Property Holdings Plan includes policies for a range of strategic infrastructure improvements, Limited including the expansion of the Metro, reopening of the Leamside Line and new pedestrian ferry services across the Tyne. There are likely to be benefits associated with such infrastructure. However, these objectives will need to be justified and supported by evidence regarding the need for such infrastructure, as well as its delivery and viability. As such, our client reserves the right to comment further in respect of these issues until a later date. The site at Ellison Street is highly sustainable within close proximity to Jarrow. The Miss Samantha Nicholls IO/QD/38 matter of accessibility will be considered comprehensively in the supporting Planning Director transport assessment Leith Planning Limited – on behalf of MMC Developments Limited
61
Other General Comments
Quick Questionnaire: Other Comments about the future planning of South Tyneside Response Respondent Ref. No.
It would be good to introduce a dedicated, managed, interactive social media Mr Bates O'Keefe IO/QL/11 element to the Local Plan, both during its preparation and once adopted - for example, a Facebook page with web links to questionnaires, planning documents, proposals maps and applications, planning facts, news, photographs, discussion forums, FAQs and a central online facility to ask about the Local Plan and development in a specific area. This could help generate better engagement with a wider range of people and interests. This approach could even help save the Council money on the time and costs often associated with consultation, engagement and disseminating information about planning and development in South Tyneside.
Restrict the development of two bed flats in private sector go for 3 bed with Mr. Anthony Purvis IO/QL/12 garage Priory Court (South Shields) Residents Association Ltd. Priority MUST be given to provide more parking spaces at Metro Stations to Peter Vincent Dale IO/QL/13 provide more integrated transport More emphasis should be placed upon good design of commercial buildings - eg [Anon] IO/QL/14 allowing the use of system designed commercial buildings such as Aldi is a negative step when looking to enhance the local environment and achieving an high quality shopping centre. If they look impressive then they will be treated with the care that is needed, and will attract quality occupiers/retailers.
We need shelter in the metro stations. The old stations had waiting rooms with Denise Bentham IO/QL/15 fires in the winter. Now you have to freeze on the platform. A real backward step.
In respect of the above, it is difficult to say which are the three least important as Mr Duncan Anderson IO/QL/17 quite frankly ALL of the listings above are very important indeed to be included in the future planning of South Tyneside. Especially the provision of a new Metro line from Tyne Dock to East Boldon along the old railway route It would be great to have a hotel in our historic town, as we see lots of overseas Mrs Sylvia Hepburn IO/QL/18 visitors, it would also create jobs Please think before you build i.e. Parking problem @ The Glen Medical Centre, Miss Scott IO/QL/19 parking issues of the Flagg Court practice. How are local people to get to the new swimming pool by the coast? No buses from here! Flooding of the new Monkton Business Park (greenbelt land!). Also as a working council tax payer, why has this questionnaire not been sent to my home address? I luckily found it in a council building that I don't usually attend as I own my own home. Disgusting practice! This list of questions include items which defy common sense eg flooding & the Alan Daw IO/QL/20 software doesn't work as a selection cannot be cancelled Beacon Heating I've run out of ideas, all is very modern but modern is large roads, water tanks, Mr Joseph Bourke IO/QL/25 gas, electricity, access plants Repeat what works (Victorian houses) not what doesn't (communal blocks of flats [Anon] IO/QL/29 with too much space around them). Protect nature and the environment, always. South Tyneside will be wonderful if they ever get it finished! Enforce the smoking ban and apply it to some outdoor recreation (leisure and cafe) so we can enjoy it
Let us clear up areas of severe blight i.e. S/S areas behind G Post Office - old Roz Slater IO/QL/31 garages and businesses now defunct! Remove now please
More wildlife meadows eg road verges, grass area near Jarrow bus station too. Mr Phil Castiaux IO/QL/33 Improved landscaping in Jarrow Shopping Centre
62
We could do with park and ride options. Everybody I speak to (including my own [Anon] IO/QL/34 option) is that South Shields town centre doesn't have enough free parking or individual shops to attract people to stay in town Restrict the number of landscape areas in the centres as they often create major [Anon] IO/QL/35 problems with vandalism and dog fouling None of the on-line questions particularly address our focus, but Question 5 of Rose Freeman IO/QL/36 the short questionnaire is the nearest with regard to Quality of Life (social and Planning Policy Officer cultural well-being). The Theatres Trust The primary purpose of cultural facilities is to enlighten and entertain the public through the production, presentation, exhibition, advancement and preservation of art, music, theatre and dance. Support of culture is increasingly seen as an investment in an area’s present and future quality of life and there is a growing awareness of the role that the arts and culture play in developing an educated workforce and, thereby, attracting an educated workforce. We believe that in the future, the quality of life that communities provide will become an increasingly important element in attracting residents. It is therefore vital that your existing cultural facilities are protected and enhanced to reflect the National Planning Policy Framework guidelines at item 70 on page 17 which states that to deliver the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services that the community needs, planning policies and decisions should plan for the use of shared space and guard against unnecessary loss of valued facilities. Also to ensure that established facilities and services are retained and able to develop for the benefit of the community. We also draw your attention to item 156 of the NPPF which recommends that Local Plans should set out strategic priorities to deliver the provision of health, security, community and cultural infrastructure and other local facilities. Cultural facilities such as theatres provide a focal point for an area’s cultural infrastructure and are usually sited in town centres where they play an important role in contributing to a vibrant evening economy. More seats along sea front - better public toilets. Promotion of history of South [Anon] IO/QL/41 Shields - museum small - very good - fantastic buildings - industry - ships etc - most people wouldn't know anything about it visiting for day 1) It would be fantastic to have an Xscape Centre in South Shields (please look up [Anon] IO/QL/42 Xscape, Castleford). I currently drive children to Castleford 1½ hours away, where they snowboard and ski. They are teenagers and always ask me why we don't have one in South Shields. It is indoors which is useful in view of our adverse weather 2) Give a concession in the new swimming pool for South Tyneside residents 3) Mark the new pavement between the pier and groyne with a "cycle only" lane 4) Create more safe cycle routes No more high building no more taking away our view of the river Mrs Pat Schaeffer IO/QL/45 Free parking on Sundays in South Shields to attract more people into the town, Mrs Angela Mitchell IO/QL/46 make South Shields more car friendly to attract trade, at present many people go elsewhere due to parking charges
We need more homes with 2 bedrooms Mr Stidolph IO/QL/48 Generally please improve buildings and facilities within the existing urban areas, David Williams IO/QL/49 and make the whole area more usable by people on foot. Cut the speed limit in Moor Lane to 20 mph and provide a footpath there. All of the above are important - why should we choose between better housing [Anon] IO/QL/53 and better food and better exercise facilities and better transport. Whilst there is so much Brownfield land about the planning process should direct development away from greenfield Car parking on pavements should be stopped. More cycle paths on roads not [Anon] IO/QL/54 pavements. Libraries and community areas should be kept open but not by volunteers
63
Residents who live within walking distance of the town centre and new leisure Mrs Alison Kilgour IO/QL/55 facilities tend to spend more money there. However the planning department readily allow plans for HMO (house of multiple occupancy) in the Beach Road area leading to increased anti-social behaviour in town centre / leisure areas. People who need HMO generally have less spending power Good quality housing is essential and a rethink for public transport. Metro's and [Anon] IO/QL/56 buses should run near and regularly (not everyone has a car)
Other Comments about the future planning of South Tyneside Response Respondent Ref. No.
The questions you pose do not relate explicitly to our areas of planning interest Anthony B. Northcote IO/W/1 and questions such as the appropriate levels of growth are matters for local Planning Advisor to determination. The Coal Authority We have not completed the questionnaire as we have no views or comments on the questions you pose. South Tyneside Council through their LDF positively addressed the issues of land instability arising from mining legacy and the safeguarding of mineral resources including surface coal (Policies DM1 & DM8). We would hope that South Tyneside will roll these two policy issues forward into the Local Plan in the same positive manner. In doing so this would meet the objectives of paragraphs 109, 120, 121, 143, 144, and 166 of the NPPF. Should you be considering any change of approach to these two issues, then The Coal Authority would be happy to provide comments both formally and informally through the Local Plan process.
Thank you for providing the opportunity for Northumberland County Council to Rob Naples IO/W/2 respond to the South Tyneside Local Plan Public Consultation on Key Issues and Planning Officer Options. Northumberland County Northumberland County Council has no detailed comments at this time; however, Council the County Council is keen to work with South Tyneside Council, under the Duty to Cooperate, regarding any potential wider cross-boundary issues that may arise as the Local Plan progresses.
Suggested Policy for emerging Local Plans to address flood risk from sewers issue Ian Lyle IO/W/3 Background Director NPPF requires that local plans should: ‘develop polices to manage flood risk from England & Lyle – on behalf all sources’. To date most Development Plans polices on flood risk have primarily of Northumbrian Water Ltd. sought to control the risks associated with flooding from water courses and the sea. However in recent years it has become apparent that flooding from sewers is a significant additional source of flood risk. Flooding from sewers arises primarily as a result storm events that give rise to excessive uncontrolled surface water run-off from existing built development, roads etc. entering the combined sewerage system. In places the sewerage network does not have the capacity to accommodate these peak flows and as a result waste water discharges from the network to surrounding land, housing and commercial property. Flooding from sewers can occur in locations that are not at risk of flooding from other more conventional sources and the areas which may be affected can even be remote from the location of the actual storm event. Given that the South Tyneside Local Plan may potentially deliver a substantial amount of new development , much of it on greenfield land, it is important to ensure that future development allocations are not at risk of flooding from sewers and that any new development itself does not exacerbate or give rise to any additional flood risk in surrounding areas.
64
In order to assist each Local Planning Authority on this issue and provide them with robust guidance on those areas most at risk from sewer flooding Northumbrian Water Ltd has been undertaking a number of Drainage Area Studies (DAS) across its operational area. Within each of these Drainage Areas each length of public sewer has been assessed and assigned a capacity factor that reflects hydraulic performance and the likelihood of flow escaping during storm events with a return period of 1 in 20 years. This equates to an annual probability of 5% and aligns with the expected service level agreement agreed with Ofwat. This agreed level of service states that: “Increased demands on the sewerage system should not put properties at risk of flooding from storm events within a return period of 1 in 20 years.” New built development should therefore be avoided in those Drainage Areas where the storm event period is already greater than 5% or where the development would increase the risk of flooding from sewers to a level greater than 5%. In South Tyneside Borough there are the following Drainage Areas for which Drainage Area Studies have or will be undertaken: 05-D47 – Westoe 05-D48 – High Shields 05-D49 – Tyne Dock/Whiteleas 05-D50 - Harton 05-D52 - Simonside 05-D53 – Jarrow/Hedworth The information in each DAS can be used by each Local Planning Authority: in formulating their Infrastructure Delivery Plans; as an important tool in the assessment and ranking of sites available for development through Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessments; as a key factor in the choice of the overall spatial strategy to be adopted as part of the plan; and to guide land use allocations and their choice of sites to be allocated for development in each plan. It is suggested that emerging Local Plan should take account of the risk of flooding from sewers in the following ways: Through the site selection process; and Through a development management policy that ensures surface water run- off levels from new development does not give rise to a level of risk from sewer flooding above agreed service levels
Site Selection Process Control can be exercised by: Only allocating those sites for development which are not at risk from sewer flooding; and Only allocating those sites for development which will not give rise to additional sewer flood risk on- site or elsewhere. Where local planning authorities still wish to pursue site allocations that are in areas of risk from sewer flooding or where development might give rise to increased risk within a defined drainage area further detailed analysis of the sewer network will be required to assess the scale of improvement required to provide the additional capacity to support the development. Furthermore it would then be necessary for NWL to make provision for the upgrades within its capital programme and deliver these upgrades before development could commence which would impact on the timescale for the delivery of any such site. Without this information it would not be possible to confirm that the site is deliverable and/or developable nor to provide a realistic trajectory for delivery in emerging Local Plans
65
Development Management Policy Any Development Management Policy covering this issue will need to promote: the full separation of foul and surface water flows including where possible the diversion of surface water flows to local watercourses through new off-site sewers, for all development involving the use of previously developed land, or where this is not possible a 50% reduction in the surface water run-off from that site entering the combined or surface water sewer system; and the full separation of foul and surface water flows including where possible the diversion of surface water flows to local watercourses through new off-site sewers for all development involving the use of greenfield land, with surface water flows being limited to Equivalent Greenfield Run-off (EGR) in line with standard practice / EA Guidance. Where a site is within 200m of a watercourse the presumption is that surface water should be discharged to this watercourse. A suggested wording for the proposed Development Management Policy is: “All major planning applications for new built development must include provision for the full separation of foul and surface water flows. Surface water should be discharged via soakaway or watercourse. However where it can be demonstrated that this is not feasible, due to there being no alternative or suitable receiving watercourse available, surface water run-off rates to combined and surface water sewers resulting from the redevelopment of brownfield sites, will be limited to a maximum of 50% of flows consented for previous uses, and for development on greenfield sites the equivalent greenfield run-off rate.”
Our Client’s land extends to 58.67 hectares, located south of Fellgate. It is bound Neil Morton IO/W/4 by: Associate Director Durham Drive to the north; Nathaniel Lichfield & A19 to the east; Partners – on behalf of A194 Leam Lane to the west; and LNMPH Property Holdings Limited A184 Newcastle Road to the south.
Site History The subject site is currently located in the Green Belt. As set out in the accompanying note, it is understood that the preparation of the new Local Plan will involve a strategic review of Green Belt boundaries (see below). The relevant planning history of the site includes its identification for release from the Green Belt for employment uses during the preparation of the Regional Spatial Strategy (RS). The site was referred to as a Regional Employment Site (RES) during the preparation of the RS. The RS Examination in Public (EiP) Panel Report (July 2006) affirms that the Panel examined whether the existing Green Belt boundaries were, at that time, capable of accommodating the long-term development requirements of the Tyne and Wear conurbation and Durham. It was confirmed that the only proposed deletion of any significance from the Green Belt included the subject site. The EiP Report states: “The NEA confirmed that the only proposed deletion of any significance from the Green Belt is that arising from RPB1, Policy EL4, which requires the allocation of a strategic employment site of between 40-200ha in the broad location of ‘north Sunderland’…an area of up to 90ha north of the A184(T) and east of the A194, the TyneWear Park has been identified to meet a potential shortage of employment land towards the end of the RSS period.” South Tyneside Council (“the Council”) confirmed at the time that the major strategic development of the site and the site’s release from the Green Belt was acceptable in principle. The EiP Panel Report states that: “South Tyneside DC and Tyne and Wear Authorities spoke in support of the proposed allocation.”
66
Notwithstanding the EiP concluded that: “In view of the availability of other opportunities in the Region we are of the opinion that the designation should be withdrawn from this Site and that it should remain as Green Belt.” As such the submitted and consequently adopted RS (June 2008) did not include the subject site as a major strategic employment allocation. Whilst the Council initially included the site as a major strategic employment allocation when drafting their Local Development Framework (LDF), this was subsequently abandoned due to the RS examination outcome. Notwithstanding, the Inspector’s report states that: “The allocation of additional greenfield land is constrained by the extent of the Green Belt. However, the Council recognise that future development needs will be likely to necessitate a strategic review of Green Belt boundaries through a new overarching CS.” The above demonstrates that the site has been considered in detail for development and deletion from the Green Belt by the Council. In particular, the Council has concluded that the site’s release from the Green Belt is acceptable if there is insufficient non Green Belt land available to meet needs, as it the case at present. Indeed, the Council has made clear that the allocation of land in the Borough is constrained by the extent of the Green Belt and that a strategic review of Green Belt boundaries is likely to meet future development needs of the Borough. It is in this context that the accompanying representation is provided. We consider that the subject site affords the ability to meet development needs in the emerging Local Plan for mixed-use development; as set out in the remainder of this letter and in the accompanying questionnaire response.
Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) The site has been assessed in the STC SHLAA (2013) as being suitable for housing development subject to STC’s Strategic Land Review (SLR). The SHLAA assessment states that the site is available, achievable (in 6-10years) and not presently developable (presumably due to its Green Belt designation).
Sustainable Location The NPPF sets out that a presumption in favour of sustainable development is the basis for every plan. A core principle of the NPPF, set out at paragraph 17 is to: “Actively manage patters of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable.” It is clear that the NPPF directs development to sustainable locations that are accessible by transport modes other than the private car. Our Client’s site represents such a location - it is located within walking distance of Fellgate and the services and facilities therein, as detailed below.
Service / Facility Approximate walking distance from northern edge of site Transport Provision Fellgate Metro 1,000m Bus Stop 100m
Education Facilities St Joseph’s RC Primary School 870m Fellgate Primary School 250m Hedworthfield Primary School 870m Hedworth Comprehensive School 400m
67
Community Facilities St Joseph’s Catholic Church 880m Lakeside Inn 120m Post Office 850m Londis Shop 850m Fellgate Function Room 850m Fellgate Fitness Centre 350m Newsagent 350m Hedworth Community Association 400m
It is clear that the site is well located within the existing residential area and is in close proximity to a wide range of shops, community facilities, employment opportunities and public transport facilities that can be used on a day-to-day basis. The site is located within walking distance of Fellgate Metro affording access to Newcastle, Sunderland and throughout Tyne and Wear. Additionally the site is located within 100m of bus stops served by Service 5 (half hourly service) and 558 (hourly service) operated by Go NorthEast. Service 5 provides links between Jarrow and South Tyneside and the 558 between Heworth and Cleadon; providing access to the jobs and facilities therein.
Green Belt review Whilst a separate strategic review of Green Belt boundaries will afford a greater opportunity to set out the exceptional circumstances as to why our Client’s site should be released from the Green Belt, the NPPF makes clear that the purpose of the Green Belt is not to definitely prevent future growth requirements and housing needs from being met. Rather, the release of land from the Green Belt is wholly justified and necessary, particularly where alternative options to meet development needs are highly constrained, as is the case for South Tyneside. Releasing land from the Green Belt, creating a new and defensible Green Belt boundary will mean that new development outside the established urban area is subject to limits; restricting the ‘sprawl’ of the urban area. Given that the Council has acknowledged the allocation of land is constrained by the extent of the Green Belt we would wholly support and urge the Council to undertake a Strategic review of Green Belt boundaries noting NPPF paragraph 83 which states: “Local planning authorities with Green Belts in their area should establish Green Belt boundaries in their Local Plans which set the framework for Green Belt and settlement policy.” The above makes clear that any Green Belt review should be undertaken now; alongside the review of the Local Plan, which will be the overarching planning policy document for South Tyneside.
Neighbourhood Planning Whilst the preparation of a Neighbourhood Plan for the area in which the site is located is at a very early stage, our client is interested in being involved in its preparation. Noting that it would have to be consistent with the wider Local Plan, we would welcome further discussions with the Council regarding this issue.
Summary The subject site has previously been considered for development and release from the Green Belt and this was supported by the Council. The Council has made clear the constraints that the existing Green Belt poses on the allocation of greenfield sites to meet development needs of the Borough. The subject site has been assessed in the SHLAA as being suitable for housing development, albeit not presently developable due to its Green Belt location. The site is in a sustainable location, in close proximity to a range of facilities, education, public transport and employment opportunities.
68
We would welcome discussions as part of the Council’s Strategic Review of Green Belt boundaries alongside its review of the Local Plan regarding the future of the site and its ability to meet the development needs of the Borough in a sustainable location.
As you are aware there has been a history of very close consultation and Helen Marks IO/W/5 negotiation between the Local Planning Authority and the Port of Tyne regarding Associate the policies in the emerging Local Development Framework (LDF). As a result, the Storeys Edward Symmons – policies contained in various documents that form the LDF, including the Central on behalf of The Port of Jarrow Action Plan, the Site Specific Allocations Development Plan and the Tyne Development Management Policies DPD, largely support the Port’s operations and future aspirations for development. This support is important to the Port’s continued economic growth. However, Policy DM2 of the Development Management Policies has been the cause of some difficulty for the Port and we believe this is perhaps unnecessary and avoidable. Now that the Council is in the process of preparing its new Local Plan, in accordance with the requirements of Central Government, we consider that this presents an opportunity to work with the Council again to produce a single policy that draws together the strands of the relevant supportive policies and associated text contained within the LDF to promote the future of the Port.
Background Once world-renowned for coal exports, the Port has diversified in recent times to ensure it can keep pace with the global economy and its customers’ varying needs. It is now the UK’s largest car exporter, the fifth largest in Europe; the fourth largest coal importer in the UK, with volumes of imported coal having increased to the highest levels in recent times and one of the largest handlers of wood pellet in the world. It operates an award-winning International Passenger Terminal for ferries and cruise ships, a busy container terminal and a UK wide distribution network with a fleet of more than 180 trucks and trailers. Investment of over £120m in the past decade has created the infrastructure to deliver the continued growth of Port’s five commercial business areas: Conventional & Bulk Cargoes, Car Terminals, Cruise & Ferries, Logistics and Estates. The Port of Tyne contributes in the region of £500m to the North East regional economy, supporting 10,000 jobs per annum. It undeniably makes a substantial contribution to the local economy which has the potential to increase in the future with the infilling at Tyne Dock, the recent acquisition of the former McNulty’s Yard and the planned expansion into the renewables sector.
Current Policy Position As stated above the LDF contains several policies that support development at the Port including Policy J4 of the Central Jarrow Action Plan that ‘supports the future development needs of the Port of Tyne to enable it to adapt and operate efficiently as a key gateway to trade…..’ supported by paragraph 4.4 which acknowledges the role of the Port in promoting economic growth, investment and prosperity in South Tyneside. Policy SA3 of the Site Specific Allocations DPD also specifically supports the ‘future development of the Port of Tyne at Tyne Dock and Jarrow Slake to enable it to adapt and operate efficiently as a key strategic gateway to trade, including the infilling and reclamation of the former Tyne Dock to create new economic development land for predominantly port-related uses’. Through discussion and negotiation this policy was refined to support economic development at the Port which may fall outside the normal Class B uses or the Ports permitted development rights, particularly given the recent diversification of the Ports into operations such as wood pellet storage, handling and distribution. The supporting text at paragraph 4.6 provides further clarity to this approach. Policy DM2 of the Development Management Policies has been the cause of some unease for the Port in the past given its blanket support for employment uses,
69
Class B1, B2 and B8, as opposed to redevelopment for alternative uses in Predominantly Industrial Areas, which includes the Port’s land holdings as defined by the LDF. Through negotiation this has been addressed by the inclusion of paragraph 3.10 that cross references to policies SA3 and J4 and refers to ‘the special circumstances relating to the Port of Tyne’ and ‘flexibility in the application of the policy’ to the Port. However, this is not encapsulated in Policy in the Development Management Policies document.
The Local Plan The introduction of a Port specific policy in the new Local Plan presents the opportunity to acknowledge the economic contributions of the Port and its special requirements in one place, so avoiding the need for detailed clarifications, qualifications and cross references. This could become increasingly significant going forward given the extension to infilling of Tyne Dock to expand Riverside Quay, creating an additional 2.6 ha of land which secured the approval of the Council this month, and the acquisition of McNulty’s Yard by the Port. Whilst there are currently no firm proposals for the development of either of these areas together they significantly increase the Port’s land holdings in the Borough and present the potential for future inward investment. Accordingly, the Port would welcome and support a single policy along the lines of SA3 (A) which generally supports the future development of the Port of Tyne along with a port specific allocation on the proposals map, rather than allocating the whole of the Port estate as a Predominantly Industrial Area which has given rise to the need for clarifications. This could again be supported by text setting out the detail of the Port’s Permitted Development Rights.
Candidate World Heritage Site Reference should also be made to the Wearmouth- Jarrow candidate World Heritage site that has been withdrawn after an evaluation by the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). We understand that the decision to withdraw was made jointly by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), English Heritage and the Wearmouth-Jarrow Partnership to avoid the bid being turned down by UNESCO World Heritage Committee and at present no work is being undertaken on its resubmission. The emphasis placed on the cWHS in the LDF has been a matter of on-going discussion between the Port and the Council, particularly in respect of the emphasis placed on the proposed ‘buffer zone’. A number of policies in the LDF make reference to the candidate site including EA4 of the Core Strategy but the issue is most prevalent in the Central Jarrow Area Action Plan. The Port has in the past sought the removal of any reference to the cWHS and the ‘buffer zone’ from policies J4 and J10 and eventually a form of compromise was reached between both parties. Given the current status of the bid the Port is obviously seeking for any reference to the candidate site to be removed from policies affecting its land interests. Whilst it is acknowledged that the Plan may have to contain some reference to the sites candidate status, dependent on the bids position at the time, undue emphasis should not be placed on the site. Obviously, the existing designations remain in place and the impact of any proposals on these heritage assets must be assessed in accordance with national planning guidance and it is this position that should be reflected in the emerging plan. We hope that this correspondence highlights what the Port considers to be a real opportunity for the Councils recognition of its activities in the forthcoming Local Plan and serves as a means of opening a discussion on this issue. We have not completed the Councils consultation questionnaire as most of it is not relevant to the Ports activities. However, we have noted that ‘Providing for Economic Growth and Employment Opportunities’ is a key issue for discussion in the consultation on the Local Plan in view the current levels of unemployment in
70 the Borough and the desire to increase employment opportunities and attract new business. The Port and its land holdings present a significant opportunity for future economic development, including the continued diversification of the Port’s activities in response to global markets allowing it to continue to compete on the world stage and remain commercially successful, reinvesting all profits back into the business so that it continues to grow. This includes new land at Tyne Dock responding to the Council’s stated requirement in its Local Plan consultation for more land for economic development. We look forward to maintaining a dialogue with representatives of the Council in respect of all these issues.
Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to John King IO/W/6 ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for Lead Adviser, Land Use the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable Operations development. Natural England Thank you for consulting Natural England during this early stage of the Local [* Late response] Plan’s development. We have no detailed comments to make at this point of the plan making process. However, we will make more specific comments at the draft stage. There are a number of broad issues which the Local Plan should address.
Delivering Sustainable Development – The Local Plan should deliver the three pillars of sustainable development as set out in the NPPF. The following policy may be appropriate to South Tyneside and is suggested by the Planning Inspectorate: http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning/planningsystem/localplans#Presume
Natural Environment - The plan should contain a clear strategic approach to the protection, enhancement and creation of habitats. Reflecting the NPPF’s approach to sustainable development, it should take a positive approach to both development and the environment by identifying strategic objectives. This may entail the identification of key ecological networks (consisting of local, national and international nature conservation sites). The Plan should recognise the value of nature to the economy (renewable energy, tourism and other eco-system services). Neither economic growth nor the environment is mutually exclusive. Policies should seek a net increase in biodiversity, by going beyond conserving and enhancing the natural environment. Policies throughout the plan should incorporate the delivery of habitats and protection of species in accordance with the local BAP. For example design policies should include the creation of wildlife areas and allocation policies should identify on-site opportunities and ensure delivery. Guidance on species and habitats that are of concern in the planning context can be found at: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/biodiversity/protectan dmanage/habsandspeciesimportance.aspx The Natural Environment White Paper outlines the current approach to ecological networks and the delivery of habitats at a landscape scale: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/natural/whitepaper/
Designated Nature Conservation Sites – Policies should identify and distinguish between sites, and apply policies to these sites in accordance with international and national legislation. Circular 06/2005 sets outs planning’s role in their protection and enhancement: http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/circularbiodiv ersity
Ancient Woodlands - Local plan should, in accordance with NPPF para 118, conserve and enhance these irreplaceable habitats. The flowing advice includes
71
Local Plan advice: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/standing-advice- ancient-woodland_tcm6-32633.pdf
Green Infrastructure - The Local Plan should identify a strategic network of green infrastructure. This should emphasise their multi-functional role as a key deliverer of recreational, wildlife conservation and enhancement, and sustainable transport objectives.
Green Space – The plan should protected valued areas of open space. Natural green spaces should, where appropriate, be incorporated within plans in accordance with the ANGst Standards: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/regions/east_of_england/ourwork/gi/accessib lenaturalgreenspacestandardangst.aspx and http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/40004?category=47004
Climate Change – Policies should contribute to an overall strategy of adapting to climate change, recognising the role of Green Infrastructure, nature conservation and enhancement.
Renewable Energy – The plan should plan positively for renewable energy whilst taking account of environmental capacity. Ne has published the following advice: http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/38006
Access and Rights of Way – Policies should seek to increase access to the countryside and nature wherever possible. This could be integrated with the GI networks. This should include coastal access. http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/35035
Landscape – If necessary South Tyneside should landscape policies should be supported by an up-to-date landscape character assessment. http://neintranettechnical/content/technical/topics/wiki.asp?ID=12&WK=1364
Allocations – The plan should allocate the least environmental value. Encouraging effective use of previously developed land, avoiding sites effects upon ecologically sensitive sites and landscapes. Where required allocation policies should specify on-site or off-site mitigation required to avoid adverse effects upon protected sites and species.
Evidenced Based – Policies should be supported by evidence, especially those which have implications for the natural environment. A critical piece of supporting evidence is the Habitats Regulation Assessment. This must accompany the next iteration of the Local Plan and assess its effects upon international and European protected sites. The SA will also form a critical piece of evidence. Natural England can advise on both these supporting documents. HRA regulations: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/490/contents/made The following guidance provides useful information on the HRA process: http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/B698695.pdf
From the Council’s website I have viewed two documents which I take to be Alan Hunter IO/W/7 background information as regards issues and options facing the area. They are Principal Historic The South Tyneside Vision 201-2031, and Shaping Our Future – South Tyneside Environment Planning Council Strategy 2011-2016. Adviser: North East Whereas in respect of the Council’s previous, and adopted, Development Plan English Heritage Documents the historic environment has been given largely positive [* Late response] consideration, these background papers say little or nothing about it. Given the government’s new imperative for Local Plans to enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (paragraphs 151 and 182), and that one of the core dimensions of sustainable development is the protection and enhancement of the historic environment (paragraph 7), its omission from these documents is somewhat surprising. One of the twelve principal objectives of planning under the NPPF is
72 the conservation of heritage assets for the quality of life they bring to this and future generations (paragraph 17). Whilst I have no doubt that you will be familiar with the content of the NPPF, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight some key messages in it for the historic environment as you prepare your Local Plan. In summary, a Local Plan may be considered unsound if: 1. There has been no proper assessment of the significance of heritage assets in the area, including their settings, and of the potential for finding new sites of archaeological or historic interest (paragraph 169), or there has been no proper assessment to identify land where development would be inappropriate because of its historic significance (paragraph 157). Without these assessments the local authority cannot properly assert that the objectives for sustainable development have been understood and therefore cannot say whether the objectively assessed development needs of the area will be met or not in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development (paragraph 14). 2. It does not contain a positive strategy for the conservation, enhancement and enjoyment of the historic environment, and a policy for it that is clearly identified as strategic (paragraphs 126 and 156). Conservation means maintaining what is important about a place and improving it where this is desirable. It is not a passive exercise. It requires a plan for the maintenance and use of heritage assets and for the delivery of development within their setting that will make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. As such, a strategy to conserve heritage assets potentially engages all aspects of planning. Policies for local housing, retail, and transport, for example, may need to be tailored to achieve the positive improvements in the historic environment that the NPPF expects (paragraph 8). Conservation is certainly not a stand alone exercise satisfied by stand alone policies that repeat the NPPF objectives. Historic environment policies need to be clearly identified as strategic (paragraph 156). Neighbourhood Plans are only required to be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the Local Plan (paragraphs 12 and 185). If the policies delivering conservation may be discounted then the Local Plan cannot be confidently predicted to deliver development needs throughout the plan period. To achieve these objectives it will be necessary for the authority to consider the historic environment from the outset. Consideration should flow through from compiling the evidence base to policy, implementation and monitoring. Rather than taking a process-driven approach, the emphasis should be on the delivery of places of quality, drawing on the opportunities and potential of the historic environment of the local area (paragraph 126).
Gathering evidence Sound Local Plans will be based on adequate up-to-date evidence about the historic environment, used to assess the significance of heritage assets (designated and non-designated) and the contribution they make to the local area (paragraphs 158 and169). This may entail an assessment of historic landscape character. This is not just an exercise in listing known sites, but of understanding their value to society (their significance), how they and the area have developed through history, their physical conservation status and needs, the contribution of their settings, scope for enhancement and their potential to contribute to the delivery of other sustainable development objectives. Without an understanding of what can sometimes be the subtle qualities of an area, its local distinctiveness and character may be easily lost. There also needs to be an assessment of the likelihood that currently unidentified heritage assets, particularly sites of historic and archaeological interest, will be discovered in the future (paragraph 169). In some cases, it might be necessary to identify heritage assets outside of the local authority area, e.g. where there are likely to be setting impacts caused by potential development proposals in that
73 area. It is important to bear in mind that some asset types are not currently well- recorded. The Register of Parks and Gardens of Historic Interest in England, for example, is thought to represent only around two thirds of sites potentially deserving inclusion. There may be undiscovered archaeological sites in the area, some of which could be of national importance. A strong evidence base will assist not just in plan-making but also in meeting the NPPF policy requirements for sound decision- making (paragraph 129). Evidence gathering can, for example, help identify parts of a locality that may be worthy of designation as a conservation area. The evidence base will also be of relevance to the Sustainability Appraisal which accompanies the Local Plan, helping to populate the baseline data and informing the appraisal process itself. In order to meet the goal of achieving economic, social, and environmental gains jointly and simultaneously (paragraph 8) other assessments, such as land availability, green infrastructure, and sustainable urban extension studies should also take account of local heritage assets. On occasions some additional heritage- specific assessments may be helpful, for example, more detailed historic characterisation work to assess the impact of a proposal for a major urban extension. The data will be useful when developing appropriate indicators for monitoring the delivery of the plan, including any significant effects identified by the sustainability appraisal. Sources of evidence include: National Heritage List for England Historic Environment Record Conservation Area Appraisals and Management Plans Local Lists National and local ‘Heritage at Risk’ registers Historic characterisation assessments World Heritage Site Management Plans In-house and local (e.g. civic societies, local history groups, neighbourhood consultations) knowledge and expertise in built conservation, archaeology and urban design) The heritage assets, historic areas and landscapes themselves Where the evidence base is weak, the local planning authority may find it useful to commission research from appropriately qualified and competent experts to supplement existing information. The NPPF highlights the role of participation in gaining the views of the local community and others who have a stake in the future of the area (paragraph 155). Opportunities to seek views on what local people value about their local place, including its historic environment, can be taken during neighbourhood consultations or from public surveys on how people feel about their areas through initiatives like Placecheck (www.placecheck.info/). Characterisation studies and the process of identifying a list of local heritage assets can also involve local people. [English Heritage guidance Understanding Place: Character and Context in local planning (2011) provides a series of case studies to suggest ways of engaging local people in understanding the historic environment.] Such evidence gathering can be beneficial, particularly as part of enabling neighbourhood planning and strengthening the likely compatibility of Neighbourhood and Local Plans.
A positive strategy for conservation of the Historic Environment Local Plans should set out the strategic priorities for the area (paragraph 156). They should make clear that the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment is one such priority. Local Plans should also include a clear and positive strategy for the historic environment, including heritage assets most at
74 risk through neglect, decay or other threats (paragraph 126). It may be derived from an understanding of the issues set out in the evidence base and response to those matters. The strategy should also seek positive improvements in the quality of the historic environment in the pursuit of sustainable development (paragraph 9). The NPPF expects heritage assets to be conserved and enhanced for generations to come. A positive strategy will address all the necessary means of achieving that end. The consequences of that strategy may stretch into many other areas of land use planning, such as design, infrastructure, and natural environment policies. In formulating the strategy it is advisable and often necessary to consider the following factors: How the historic environment can deliver the vision and objective(s) of the Local Plan. Particular issues identified during the development of the evidence base, including heritage at risk, and the reuse of buildings. The location, design, and use of future development and how it can contribute to local identity and distinctiveness. Whether masterplans or design briefs need to be prepared for significant sites where major change is proposed. How the historic environment can help to deliver wider economic, social, and environmental objectives for the plan area (paragraph 126). The interrelationship between conservation of heritage assets and green infrastructure, landscape, regeneration, economic development, transport works, infrastructure planning, tourism, town centres, and climate change mitigation or adaptation.
How conservation areas may be sustainably managed, including through the use of Management Plans and Article 4 Directions where appropriate. [English Heritage guidance Understanding Place: Conservation Area Designation, Appraisal and Management March 2011 is being updated at present to include reference to the NPPF and its policies.] The usefulness of local lists in identifying non-designated heritage assets. Opportunities to improve historic streets, townscapes, landscapes and settings (pertinent in respect of the current issues facing retailing and our town centres). The expectation in relation to desk-based assessment and field evaluation in relation to sites of possible archaeological interest (paragraph 128). Areas where archaeological potential has already been identified. The means by which new development in Conservation Areas (and World Heritage Sites) and within the setting of heritage assets is expected to enhance or better reveals their significance (paragraph 137). How CIL and/or S106 agreements could contribute towards the enhancement of individual assets or specific historic places. To enable an assessment of the heritage strategy’s effectiveness the identification of indicators to enable future monitoring should be considered.
Strategic policies for the conservation of the historic environment Local Plans should include strategic policies to conserve and enhance the historic environment of the area (paragraph 156) and to guide how the presumption in favour of sustainable development should be applied locally (paragraph 15). The strategic policies for the historic environment will derive from the overall strategy to deliver conservation and enjoyment of the area’s heritage assets for this and generations to come. These may be policies that concern themselves specifically with the development of types of heritage asset. However, delivery of the NPPF objective may also require strategic policies on use, design of new development, transport, layout and so on. Conceivably, every aspect of planning can make a contribution to heritage conservation. Plan policies under all topics
75 should be assessed for their impact on the strategic conservation objective. The Local Plan should also consider the role which the historic environment might play in delivering other planning objectives, such as:
Building a strong, competitive economy How can the quality of the historic environment be improved to encourage investment? What is the role for the historic environment, heritage-led tourism and culture in the economic vision and strategy? Have sites/locations for heritage regeneration and environmental enhancement been identified?
Ensuring the vitality of town centres Do the policies recognise and support historic town centres? Are historic markets and market places retained and enhanced? How can declining town centres capitalise on their historic environment?
Supporting a prosperous rural economy How is the conversion of traditional/historic rural buildings and farmsteads handled? How is heritage-led rural tourism supported? What policies are included for the retention and development of locally important services and facilities which may occupy buildings of historic interest?
Promoting sustainable transport How will future transport proposals respond positively to the historic environment? How are traffic/street management, environmental improvements, paving, and street furniture going to be designed and managed in a historic streetscene?
Supporting high quality communications infrastructure How will the communications masts and streetboxes, and other physical presence, be integrated into the historic environment with minimal effect?
Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes What policies are included to identify and bring back into residential use empty housing and buildings? What policies are included to encourage the sensitive adaptive reuse of buildings? How does larger scale development, new settlements or extensions to villages and towns impact on the historic environment and reflect the character and appearance of the local area?
Requiring good design How has an understanding and evaluation of the defining characteristics of an area been reflected in design standards? How has local distinctiveness been promoted / reinforced? What policies are included to successfully integrate new development into the historic environment?
Protecting Green Belt land One of the purposes of Green Belt land is to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. How has this purpose been considered in any review of any green belt or strategic settlement gaps?
Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change Do flood prevention measures demonstrate an awareness of heritage assets in their location and design?
76
Has the renewable energy strategy positively cross-referenced the historic environment in terms of installation location and type? Are appropriate retrofitting standards that conserve and enhance heritage assets reinforced?
Conserving and enhancing the natural environment How have valued landscapes been identified, protected and enhanced? Has the historic dimension to green infrastructure been included? How have aspects of the historic landscape covering noise, tranquillity, light pollution and dark landscapes been covered?
Facilitating the sustainable use of minerals Do the environmental criteria included in policies for the extraction of minerals avoid unacceptable adverse impact on the historic environment, including cumulative impacts? Does the restoration policy include the historic environment? How has the small-scale extraction of building and roofing stone and brick clay for the repair of heritage assets been covered?
Planning across boundaries Local planning authorities are required to work collaboratively with other bodies to ensure that strategic priorities across local boundaries are properly co- ordinated and clearly reflected in Local Plans, particularly those that relate to strategic priorities (paragraph 178). In some plans the need to conserve the historic environment of an area, and therefore deliver the strategic priorities of the NPPF, may require such cross-boundary co-operation. For example, the need to ensure that the outstanding universal value of a World Heritage Site is appropriately conserved or an extensive archaeological landscape is appropriately managed may warrant a joint approach by a number of local planning authorities in their Local Plans.
Planning for Specialist Older Person Accommodation Kevin Waters IO/W/8 Gladman Care Homes (GCH) (trading under the Adlington brand) specialise in the Planning and Development development of specialist older person accommodation and are currently Manager developing a number of schemes with care provided by MHA (Methodist Homes Adlington (Gladman Care for the Aged). Homes) GCH are keen to ensure a sound policy position is established for South Tyneside [* Early pre-consultation Borough Council should any potential development opportunities arise during the representation (June 2012)] plan period and to ensure that the local planning policy properly reflects the evidence base documents. Further to adoption of your Core Strategy, I understand that in due course you will be working towards a review of this to ensure conformity with the NPPF and work towards a new style Local Plan. In advance of this process, please find enclose our representations document outlining the key benefits of developing specialist older person accommodation for people in need of care.
Demographics and older person strategies It is apparent from the demographic profile and future population projections for the area that there is a current and rising future need for specialist accommodation with care for older people. It is therefore of paramount importance that this is properly planned for and included within specific policies alongside those for other types of residential accommodation within the Core Strategy in order to provide an adequate mechanism to ensure delivery to this group of people, who would otherwise not be provided for.
77
Specialist Housing with care for Older People Specialist housing with care for older people is a type of housing which provides choice to adults with varying care needs and enables them to live as independently as possible in their own self-contained homes, where people are able to readily access high quality, flexible support and care services on site to suit their individual needs (including dementia care). Such schemes differ from traditional sheltered/retirement accommodation schemes and should provide internally accessible communal facilities including residents lounge, library, dining room, guest suite, quiet lounge, IT suite, assisted bathroom, internal buggy store and changing facilities, reception and care managers office and staff facilities. Ideally a range of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom apartments should be provided in order to provide flexibility and in order to maximise the care efficiencies to residents schemes should comprise 50-70 apartments. Given the evidence base and the national strategy, a policy should be included within the Core Strategy, as follows: The provision of purpose built and/or specialist accommodation with care for older people in suitable locations will be supported in every settlement with more than 10,000 population. Schemes should also be considered in other sustainable settlements where there is a proven need. Apartments should be restricted for occupation by only those with care needs, include minimum compulsory care packages, should also include age restrictions and an extensive range of communal facilities. Schemes are expected to be promoted in partnership with an on site 24/7 care provider to safeguard the delivery of care and support to residents. Such schemes fall wholly within the auspices of C2 use, meet an otherwise unmet need for specialist accommodation for older people, deliver care and communal facilities and will not therefore be required to contribute towards affordable housing. Additional evidence for the need for this type of accommodation has also been identified within the South Tyneside Housing Market Assessment 2009 (page 29) and the Core Strategy should reflect the evidence base.
Key Benefits The development of additional residential accommodation with care/extra care for people in need of care delivers a number of key benefits:- It represents one of the most efficient ways to deliver care ad support and will contribute towards reducing the financial burden for Adult Social Care budgets. Meets the need of those people who wish to live in self contained accommodation but who require support and care who can then be cared for in the privacy of their own home. The “Residential accommodation with care” model provides a real alternative to long term care in institutional residential care homes, for older persons or persons with a disability. The Government strongly support the concept of independent living with integrated care for people with care needs. Few alternatives are currently available in the local market. It will help to fulfil the unmet demand for this type of care accommodation designed specifically with older people in mind. It creates an environment where preventative measures to reduce ill health and active ageing is promoted, creating an alternative to current residential care homes thus allowing older people the enjoyment of a more fulfilled life in the elderly years. It facilitates greater integration between housing, health and social care providers and reduces the burden on local health and social services. Intensive care and support will be available for those in need.
78
It has the potential to contribute towards the release of existing housing stock widening choice and opportunity within the general open market, particularly family housing. Providing good quality, appropriate housing for older people involves the basic principles of prevention of the need for higher dependency care, individuality and flexibility of care services, integration within the local community and maximising independent health and well being. This type of specialist accommodation offers an alternative to residential care for older people by combining the advantages of high quality, self-contained and secure accommodation, with the provision of flexible care services on a day to day basis to those in need of care. The service enables older people to retain control over their own lives while receiving the care and support they need.
Government Aims Reflecting the vital importance of meeting this need, a wide range of reports and strategies are in place recommending and advocating the delivery of specialist older persons accommodation with care and the benefits to such an approach including: "The Case for Change - Why England Needs a New Care and Support System." HM Government, 2008, The Care Services Improvement Partnership Toolkit "More Choice, Greater Voice" (CSIP 2008) More Choice, Greater Voice a Toolkit for Producing a Strategy Accommodation with Care for Older People - DCLG Feb 2008 "HAPPI - Housing our Ageing Population - Panel for Innovation" was published in December 2009 by the Communities and Local Government, Department of Health and the Homes and Communities Agency 'Living Well with Dementia - A National Dementia Strategy - Department of Health 3rd February 2009 "Under Pressure: Tackling the financial challenge for councils of an ageing population" Local Government Report February 2010 Housing and Ageing Population: The Extra Care Solution - Tim Brown, Principle Lecturer, De Montfort University 2010 Financial Benefits of Investment in Specialist Housing for Vulnerable and Older People - HCA September 2010 Housing LIN Factsheet 33: Pretty Vacant chains and Extra Care Housing Stimulating local housing markets -June 2011
The key conclusions from these, include: An ideal solution would be a private home but with all the support of a residential care home. It must be a community solution which requires full commitment of housing, health and social care agencies. The existing care and support system is not sustainable because of the changing demographics present in our society. The existing system does not always live up to people’s expectations, under funds the kind of preventative home based domiciliary care necessary to keep people active and healthy and has placed an over reliance on residential care. The challenge is not just to accommodate the 11% of 65+ currently living in nursing care or retirement housing, but the majority of this age group who will not move in later life and whose independence and well-being could be improved by appropriate housing. 56% of those over 65 under occupy, having 2 bedrooms or more than necessary. The HAPPI panel urges all those who have a role to play in improving housing choice and quality for older people to start work now. The challenges are huge and must be tackled head on. Paramount to the success of the care model is the flexibility/affordability of care from care providers and the critical mass that can be achieved from a development on 50-70 schemes.
79
One of the panel members, Dru Vesty MBE is quoted:- "If there is an opportunity to buy a well-designed apartment, with flexible care available, in the middle of town, near your children, and to sell your family house, you're buying more than just a good product: your buying a home which means that - as you get older - you're less of a burden on your children. The offer is peace of mind."
Living Well with Dementia - A National Dementia Strategy - Department of Health 2009. This report identifies a strategic framework within which local services can deliver quality improvements to dementia services. One of the aims of the strategy is to ensure a higher quality of care for those with dementia, other relevant points include: Home care is probably the single most important service involved in supporting people with dementia in their own homes and that good quality, flexible home care services contribute significantly to maintaining people's independence, reducing social exclusion, preventing admissions to care homes and hospitals and supporting carers The importance of continuity, reliability and flexibility of home care in ensuring that people with dementia and their carers have choice and control over the services that they receive Accordingly, additional specialist accommodation for older people could significantly improve the lives of those with dementia and assist their carers by providing respite care. Additional specialist accommodation for older people can also be designed specifically to assist those with dementia.
Under Pressure: Tackling the financial challenge for councils of an ageing population" - Local Government February 2010, produced by the Audit Commission. The report sets out practical recommendations for promoting a better quality of life for older people. The report identifies: Tighter finances create an opportunity to rethink and redesign services to improve lives, while spending less public money This is a whole system issue that goes beyond the boundaries of anyone organisation Cheaper alternatives are often the services most valued by older people, their families and communities Recommendations included: All councils should "build older people’s opinions and experiences into plans for services that deliver what older people need and value, and also deliver better value for money;" and All councils should "update commissioning strategies to reflect future roles in preventing, reducing, or delaying, health and social care costs." For Councils with social care responsibilities, "work with partners, and older people, to develop an area-wide approach to later life that delivers value for money by integrating prevention, early intervention and care services"
Housing and Ageing Population: The Extra Care Solution - Tim Brown, Principle Lecturer, De Montfort University 2010 There is a considerable amount of high quality guidance and reports on extra care housing for policy makers and practitioners. This is exemplified by the work of the Housing Learning and Improvement Network (LIN). There are fundamental changes taking place that will influence the future direction of provision. These include the emerging policies of the coalition government, tackling the public expenditure crisis and an ageing society (including addressing issues such as dementia). Even more effective partnership working is required between councils, the health sector, developers, registered providers and users on the development, funding and delivery of housing with access to care and support services. The role of councils as strategic enablers and facilitators will become more important because of the devolution of powers from national and regional bodies through, for example, the Localism Bill.
80
Extra care housing has an important function in helping local housing markets to function more effectively by freeing up under-occupied family housing. Extra care provision will have an increasing role to play in meeting the needs of a wide range of types of vulnerable people such as those with learning difficulties and those with dementia. There are important lessons that can be learnt from other countries in debating a neighbourhood approach in meeting the needs of an ageing society. In the Netherlands and the USA, there is considerable interest in multi-generational housing. The concept of naturally occurring retirement communities (NORCs) has been at the centre of debates in the USA on improving the quality of life for older people who wish to remain in their own home and neighbourhoods, but require access to support services. It is clear that one future direction for extra care provision in this country is, to adopt an inclusive neighbourhood approach to local development plans and community regeneration, thus, placing extra care into the heart of all communities.
Financial Benefits of Investment in Specialist Housing for Vulnerable and Older People - HCA September 2010 The total net benefit per person per year for older people in specialist housing is £444. The total net benefit for older people is the largest for any client group.
Housing LIN Factsheet 33: Pretty Vacant chains and Extra Care Housing. Stimulating local housing markets - June 2011 The ability to demonstrate that extra care development not only helps to divert older people from more expensive health and care services but also helps other groups of people in the housing market is likely to become increasingly important. There is a strong case that suggests that the freeing up of accommodation reduces the pressure to build new housing. The Vacancy Chains approach provides a mechanism to support the development of specialist accommodation even in areas of high family housing demand. The opportunities to free up other housing are not always identified as an important element of extra care developments. The continuing development of extra care has to form part of addressing the challenge of an ageing population. Comparatively small numbers of older people occupy specialist accommodation in the UK while 17% do in the USA and 13% in Australia and New Zealand. This would suggest underdevelopment of specialist housing despite problems letting some forms of older specialist housing. The development of specialist accommodation therefore has to be concerned with the freeing up the wider housing market to' meet lifestyle choices as well as addressing issues of prevention and frailty and strategically planned in that way to meet a plurality of needs and aspirations.
81
To find out more about the Local Plan, please contact:
Forward Planning Team Development Services South Tyneside Council Town Hall and Civic Offices, Westoe Road South Shields, Tyne & Wear NE33 2RL
Telephone: (0191) 424 7688 E-mail: [email protected] Visit: www.southtyneside.info/localplan
If you know someone who would like this information in a different format contact the communications team on (0191) 424 7385
Document Reference Number: ER/xxxx/XXX2013