SJS Potts Limited 11 Mead Court Allendale Estates Newcastle upon Tyne NE12 9RF LAND AT Mobile 07531 182668 Email: sjs.potts@ yahoo.co.uk

Northumberland Local Plan Core Strategy Preferred Options for Housing Employment & Green Belt SHLAA Call for Sites and Draft Delivery Document text Representations to the Consultation Document Oct 2013

Browne Smith Baker REPRESENTATIONS Contents SHLAA – Call for Sites Draft Master Plan and Layout Overview Housing Land Availability Project Specification to be provided by the Estate Context

Core Strategy – Policy Comments Questions 1 & 2 Delivery Document – Question 4 Further Work. Questions 9 & 10 Feedback on the draft scope for the Delivery Document (para 1.30 Core Strategy) Question 12

Questions 14 - 17

Question 21

Questions 31 & 32

Questions 35 & 36

Table D.3

SJS Potts Ltd CharteredJohn Town Potts Planner Limited page 2

Overview Context This report has been prepared by SJS Potts Ltd Chartered Town Planner on behalf of Allendale Estates. Allendale Estates is a major land owner in Northumberland and is a stakeholder in the Local This is in respect of a site extending to approx. 16ha in Plan. Stocksfield shown on the attached plan. The Estate owns many hectares of land in These representations examine the site the proposal Northumberland. against national guidance, saved policies of the adopted UDP and the emerging Local Plan. The land at Stocksfield is washed over Green Belt. It is enclosed by highways. It is capable of an access, They are in three parts: drainage, etc. 1. Representations to text and policies in the Core Stocksfield is a large village which performs the roll of Strategy a Service Centre since it has a railway station on the 2. Representations to the SHLAA and specifically a call for Newcastle-Carlisle line opposite the site. sites in the Core Strategy A master plan is being prepared on a topographical 3. A suggested allocation in the Northumberland Delivery survey to demonstrate the number of dwellings the Document site might accommodate including affordable housing and the potential for a Community Infrastructure Levy contribution eg sports hall.

SJS Potts Ltd CharteredBrowne Town SmithPlanner Baker page 3 1. Core Strategy – Policy Comments The Estate makes the case for Stocksfield being re- assessed as a Service Centre where the site lies within. Its already a location as envisaged in para Question 1 1.17 adjoining these areas, where the SHLAA will This report seeks to provide information about the site in the assess whether there was suitable development land context of the Core Strategy which identifies the quantity, . broad location and key sites for new housing to deliver the The Estate is prepared to undertake the necessary vision for growth. work to feed into the Infrastructure Delivery Plan The Northumberland Delivery Document will include detailed working collaboratively with the Council and others. land allocations and site-specific proposals for infrastructure. In order to be viable, there will be a minimum A further representation will be made for this site at that time. number of dwellings necessary to support the The Estate wishes to work with the Council in the meantime infrastructure coast and CIL items. Work on this is – to validate its proposals in time for publication. on-going however based on a density of 20-30/ha over 10ha net, the site could, spread over the plan The Estate would be willing to work with the community of period, accommodate approx. 250 dwellings. Stocksfield in producing a Neighbourhood Plan as envisaged in para 1.10. The Parish Council produced a Parish Plan in Feedback on the Viability Assessment:- 1997 which for example, identified a need for a sports hall. • The Northumberland Development Viability Panel The safeguarding of this site from the Green Belt and/or should be used for the Local Plan and not for allocation of the site for residential use would facilitate this individual planning applications. together with providing affordable housing. •The terms of reference should be narrowed to This site is an appropriate location where land will be affordable housing and infrastructure contributions required to be deleted from the Green Belt, in order to (para 3.2 and 3.3). deliver the preferred strategy, not previously considered •The Delivery Development Plan Document is (para 1.13). required ASAP to make the strategy meaningful (para 3.6). •Threshold Land Values (para 5.9) can be provided for Stocksfield on request.

SJS Potts Ltd CharteredBrowne Town Smith Planner Baker page 4 Feedback on the Infrastructure Delivery Plan;- Core Strategy – Policy Comments • There appears to be no separate document for this. Question 1 (cont) This is an important factor in the preparation of the site •VA’s most applicable to the Central and SE Delivery Areas specific plans and should be made available for where land values are the highest exc Morpeth where land consultation ASAP. is not being released. Feedback on the draft scope for the Delivery •The Estate wishes to work with the Council (para 5.12) Document:- and be a member of the Development Viability Panel or via Consultation Question 1 their agent SJS. Potts Limited (Expression of Interest • Para 1.9 – It is important that stakeholders such as the form attached). Estate are fully involved in the detailed land allocations •Reappraisal should also be applied to some long standing and designations and site specific proposals and the site with planning permission or allocations not level of infrastructure benefits on offer. The Estate has implemented (para 5.19). registered to attend the Stakeholders Event. A Draft Proposals Map rather than the diagrammatic ‘key •Questions 3, 4 and 5 within the VA (page 12) are relevant diagram old style structure plan’ maps would be to the Estate and they wish to be a stakeholder and put welcome asap. forward relevant information (see SHLAA section of this • It would be helpful to know where Neighbourhood report). Plans are being prepared and how new plans can be •Regarding the Affordable Housing Viability Assessment validated. (page 17), house builders and landowners find a discount • The timetable in Table 1.1 of the Delivery Document from open market value preferable to the doesn’t dovetail with the Table 1.1 in the Core Strategy. intermediate/rented definitions used as they are more It is in fact, a year behind. Adoption should be the deliverable and quantifiable and don’t rely on third parties. same. This is important for stakeholders to make their case and employ consultants. •Where Policy 8 is applied, the intermediate should exceed • Table 2.2 seems to have missing policies on the the rented not the other way around as proposed as this delivery areas. method has acted as a brake on completions ie. Not just market conditions.

SJS Potts Ltd CharteredBrowne Town Smith Planner Baker page 5

Delivery Document Precedent Consultation Question 2 • The approach to land allocations seems to follow a Greater weight should be given to NPPF than the adopted large sites (demonstrate delivery of the CS) and Local Plan since 27 March 2013. The Tynedale Local Plan small sites (Delivery Area level)? dates back to 2000. Para 14 of NPPF states that pp should Consultation Question 3 be granted unless the impact would conflict with NPPF. • Some further detail in para 2.13 is required eg what Application 13/01102/FUL approved for 22 dwellings at 20 community facilities, what sports & recreation Nov 2013 committee does not lie within the limited infill part provision? of the washed over GB but was nevertheless approved. Consultation Question 4 Mickley Square (200 households) is lower down in the • Para 2.14 should take the opportunity to have settlement hierarchy than Stocksfield. The site is green field ‘Safeguarded Land’ in the review of the Green Belt and not PDL. So Local Plan Policy GD2 did not apply as a lot can change between 2011-2031 and the (sequential test). This was approved as an exception site policy has worked successfully form the adopted providing 100% affordable housing. Encroachment was not Local Plan. found to be an issue since the built form would not be • Is the final bullet point in para 2.14 the Rest of extended (as at Stocksfield). It was accepted that Mickley Delivery Area figure ie in the Central Area this wold Square was an acceptable and sustainable location for new be 1720 residential development , had an adequate range of Consultation Question 5 services and a regular public transport system. Whilst it is * Agree proposed structure but stakeholders need to accepted these proposals are not 100% affordable housing see a draft Proposals Map. and are greater in scale they are no greater than some of the sites proposed to be deleted from the Green Belt elsewhere in the County and the settlement of Stocksfield is larger with better public transport links and the proposal lies within defined boundaries. It also offers a range of CIL items to help implement the Stocksfield Parish Plan.

SJS Potts Ltd Chartered Town Planner page 6 Core Strategy – Policy Comments

Questions 2 & 4

These spatial portrait for Northumberland is supported. The spatial portrait for the Central Area should be amended to Notwithstanding this, para 4.10 does state that:- include:- ‘Outside these areas a flexible approach should be taken •Stocksfield as a Service Centre (para 2.26). Stocksfield has where development can be accommodated within a at east as significant importance as a service centre as does settlement without impacting on its character’. or in the Central Area and when This is a fall back position for Stocksfield. compared to other areas such as , or . The aforementioned master plan will assess the Question 9 character of Stocksfield in the context of its character. The Estate supports the figures used in the Population Question 10 section. However, it is not clear why the lower levels of the Housing Needs Survey have been used (footnote 21). The It will also assess the school role and ability to absorb deletion of the Stocksfield site from the Green Belt would more population on existing services. enable the Local Plan to more flexibly stem the ageing Question 12 population trend by rebalancing its composition and enable Northumberland to provide a labour force. The Estate disagrees with the assertion that setting a level of new housing only to meet population projections Population growth targets should be considered as a or inline with past delivery or current policy would be minimum requirement and not a target in order to deliver the unacceptable because of its likely impact on the economy housing requirement by increasing the housing supply. The and sustainability of the communities in Northumberland. sub-national method produces not much more than 1 years From para 5.11 the issue to be given greater weight is the build rate. The post housing delivery rates method identifies fourth bullet point ‘housing demand’ which is a pre- Service Centres such as Newbiggin-by –the-Sea and requisite in a difficult market a strong incentive to allow Guidepost/Stakeford/Chopington which, by virtue of their Stocksfield to contribute to the supply. settlement size and lower market housing, will not add the choice offered were Stocksfield a Service Centre, which should be added to Table 4.1.

SJS Potts Ltd CharteredBrowne Town SmithPlanner Baker page 7

Core Strategy – Policy Comments Question 13 Table 6.1 illustrates that is a target to provide 10-15 ha of employment land. Stocksfield lies within the catchment of this A figure of 24,310 new homes over the plan period allocation and close to this main town with its range of should be considered a minimum. For example land services including hospital facilities. The Central Area is required to be deleted from the Green Belt to meet this allocated with 64.8 ha of employment land including 18 ha for figure forms less than 10% (2100 dwellings). This is far new B class uses. Executive housing in Stocksfield would less than the Green Belt deletions made in the pump prime the take up of this land. The 5 ha allocated at Newcastle-Gateshead Strategic Land Review which Prudhoe would also be more likely to be taken up with an borders Northumberland and lies within a few miles of allocation of housing at Stocksfield. The next page outlines Stocksfield. the Estate’s employment credentials.

Fifth and Sixth bullet points on land suitability and Question 14 deliverability and constraints to development should A revision to the stage 1 affordable housing policy is welcomed. have higher priority in the Local Plan. Many sites have Even at 30% this is challenging. To make the 30% work, the failed to come forward in the past. Stocksfield is a Council must take a flexible approach. This involves allowing thoroughly researched deliverable suitable and available an element at least to be off-site by means of a S106 or CIL site (see SHLAA section in these representations). contribution. The affordable housing could be accommodated all on-site of the split was more towards intermediate than rented. In particular, developers prefer to build the affordable houses themselves as RSL’s are not in the market when required often. They will then offer these dwellings are a

discount form Open Market Value.

SJS Potts Ltd CharteredBrowne Town SmithPlanner Baker page 8 Employment Credentials

Allendale Estates have several “Estates” in This new build consent was obtained about 5 years Northumberland. The one next to Stocksfield is ago; Bearl – in B & N parish – approx. 10,000 sq ft of called “Bywell and Newton Estate”. The Bywell and offices – converted circa 2005; and Roe House - in S Newton Estate has land in 2 parish Stocksfield and & B parish – approx. 8,000 sq ft of workshops – Parish (South of River Tyne – this site) converted in 2005. Circa 250 to 300 people are and Bywell and Newton Parish (North of River employed on all 4 of the above sites. These jobs are Tyne).There are 4 main sites on the Bywell and on the whole fairly well paid skilled office jobs Newton Estate where Allendale Estates have (Architects / Surveyors / Engineers / Designers / converted redundant farm buildings into offices / Marketing etc). Allendale Estates would like to see workshops and thus provided premises that have in NCC put in place a development plan that allows turn either attracted businesses into the parish or them to continue the past trend of converting allowed existing businesses to grow. These are at redundant farm buildings (with some new build as South Acomb – in B & N parish – approx. 10,000 sq well – where applicable) for employment uses and ft of offices – converted pre 1998; Stocksfield Hall – the 250-300 dwellings proposed at Stocksfield caters in S & B parish – approx. 30,000 sq ft of offices – for this existing and future growth in jobs on the the biggest of all the sites and probably the most estates land. successful – converted in 1998 to 2001. The Estate has an existing planning consent (only partly utilised) to allow for a fairly substantial new build extension of this site (to allow for growth of the existing businesses).

SJS Potts Ltd Chartered Town Planner page 9

Core Strategy – Policy Comments Table 7.2 refers to housing numbers by delivery area. In the Central Area there are relatively few dwellings 2011-2031 in the main towns of Hexham Morpeth and Prudhoe or Service Question 14 (cont) Centres of Corbridge and when compared to the

Tynedale does not have a 5 year housing supply. It will get number in the Rest of the Delivery Area ie 1720 remain closer to that figure if the safeguarded land allocations from outside of these areas. This suggest to the Estate that the adopted Local Plan are developed eg. existing Stocksfield should be a Service Centre and that even within applications at Cragside, Corbridge and Craneshaugh, the rest of the delivery area, the 420 dwellings sought are Hexham. Without deletions for the Green Belt, it could not achievable within these numbers. accommodate the required 15 year overall supply (para In para 715 there is an allowance of 168 units for previously 7.6). developed or brownfield land in the proposed windfall allowance. This seems relatively high given the nature of the Stocksfield at 250 dwellings would contribute to the 5 years County. supply (in part) but mainly to the overall 15 year supply in a phased release. Like the Newcastle-Gateshead SLR, not In para 7.16 the current housing supply admits that not all of only should sites such as Stocksfield be deleted from the the 7700 dwellings 2013-18 in the housing supply are Green Belt, they should also be allocated for housing. In the deliverable and the Estate welcomes this. The document is case of Stocksfield it may be appropriate to either phase correct in stating this is primarily associated with poor market the entire site or to allocate part and safeguard the conditions. That’s why the Estate feels that priority should be remainder. However, developers need certainty if they are given to those settlements with proven demand such as to fund the infrastructure and the CIL items. Stocksfield. Policy 2 is too prescriptive. Part f. should be deleted. The Notwithstanding the credentials for Stocksfield to be a overall dwelling provision should be considered a minimum. Service Centre, para 7.12 does allow for an appropriate There should be encouragement of executive housing to level of development elsewhere that precludes loss of assist employment policies. population anywhere in the County.

SJS Potts Ltd Chartered Town Planner page 10

Core Strategy - Policy Changes

Para 7.17 suggests not all of the land is allocated in the correct places to deliver the preferred strategy. The Question 15 Estate supports this assertion. Experience has shown that the Council is slow to come From para 7.18, the SHLAA needs to include Stocksfield back to developers on affordable housing and may need as a green site available deliverable and suitable for to address its staffing. The SHMA is not sufficient as a development and it is put forward here as a new site in tool for setting affordable housing standards. Each site the requested call for sites. should be treated in its own merits. Where the proposal is for executive housing an off-site contribution or a discount Assuming the density achieved at Craneshaugh, Hexham from market value is more appropriate. Where the market of 20-30/ha and assuming a 6 ha area for CIL items, the area is poorer, the entire site may well be affordable net 10 ha could accommodate 250 dwellings. This figure where selling prices are below £150k and mortgage is set at a density to include the relatively higher density packages for first time buyers introduced by the affordable housing, family housing as well as the lower government bite. This goes against table 7.4 which sets density executive housing. affordable housing percentages by too wide a brush based on the Delivery Areas as a whole and wrongly Para 7.19 admits that not all of the sites to meet the attributes higher percentages to the areas more likely to 24,310 dwellings located in the correct places and have executive housing. An allowance should be made suggest both reassessment of some sites that were for exception sites which might contribute 100% assessed before and undertaking a call for new SHLAA affordable housing as they affect a market site nearby eg sites alongside this consultation to help address the Craneshaugh & site opposite. This latter site is an deficiencies of housing land to deliver housing land Allendale Estates initiative providing affordable housing in supply requirements. Stocksfield is one such site. Hexham via Esh Group.

Para 7.20 mentions a housing trajectory and the Estate agrees that the Stocksfield site would be spread over the entire plan period.

SJS Potts Ltd CharteredBrowne Town PlannerSmith Bakerpage 11

Core Strategy – Policy Changes

Question 16

Of more assistance to and owners and developers Para 8.13 is welcomed and is also on-going in Newcastle- would be clear and concise guidance on the mix of Gateshead SLR. From para 814 it may not be appropriate to housing considered affordable ie families, starter homes delete Green Belt just because it lies within the main towns of etc and the split required. Partnerships with RSL’s Hexham, Prudhoe and Ponteland. For example the west end of would help if facilitated by the Council otherwise a Hexham proposal by Barratt has greater conflict with the 5 tests discount form OMV is a clearer approach when originally contained in PPG2 than Stocksfield which is washed- developers are trying to bid for land on a level playing over Green Belt contained within the main road and well-related to field. the settlement. The Green Belt Review Methodology should be adjusted to reflect this. NPPF offers no lifetime of the Green Belt This might avoid arguments on appeal about whether in chapter 9, but this plan stretches to 2031 so should include there is an up to date Housing Needs Study. It would safeguarded land which has been successful in bringing sites also be easier than Viability Assessments. forward in Corbridge and Hexham recently. The same could bring forward Stocksfield in due course. Where developers are required to provide a Viability Assessment a pro forma would assist. Policy 3 Question 17 therefore seems still to complicated and conditioned to allow this transparency. In Stocksfield the limited infilling permitted in washed over Green Belt since it doesn’t harm the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including the land in the first place. The site is more appropriately an Infill Boundary which would reflect the fact that it contains opportunities for infill development which would not fit the description of limited infilling.

SJS Potts Ltd CharteredBrowne Town Planner Smith pageBaker 12 Core Strategy – Policy Changes

The Estate believes that in line with para 8.19 and para 86 Question 31 of NPPF, that the character of Stocksfield can be protected Notwithstanding the proposal to promote Stocksfield to a by means other than the Green Belt such as normal Service Centre, para 9.67 is welcomed . It states that in the development management policies or conditions places on hinterland of Hexham, development is required to extend the grant of planning permission. choice in the housing market and provide affordable housing Para 8.20 identifies sub Service Centre settlements where to diversify the local economy and retain services and these are unnecessarily constrained in their ability to allow facilities. for development which would support those communities. It is considered that the proposed Green Belt deletions form Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Estate welcomes the the north-west and north-east of Hexham will not be inclusion of Stocksfield in this list. available/deliverable/suitable and that sites such as The boundary of Stocksfield is to be reviewed as part of the Stocksfield @ 250 dwellings can make up the shortfall. The Delivery Document but as stated, development can be avoids the visual intrusion of the 600 dwelliings to the west achieved within the settlement without going to peripheral of Hexham as the Estate’s site is infill rather than an sites. extension. Question 21 Question 32 The Estate has no comments on Policy 4 except to state It is not considered Prudhoe can provide the range and that it should no longer apply to Stocksfield as this site choice that Stocksfield can and the additional 1000 dwellings should be deleted from the Green Belt as part of the is too much, especially since the town has already had Delivery Document review. extensions at Broomhouse Lane and Prudhoe Hospital. To meet the proposed numbers also requires a western rad

extension. Stocksfield needs less infrastructure to deliver the numbers. The proposed Green Belt review to the west of Prudhoe is an extension whilst the proposal for Stocksfield is infill. SJS Potts Ltd CharteredBrowne Town Planner Smith pageBaker 13

Core Strategy – Policy Changes

Question 35 Table D.3

The Estate objects to the Green Belt deletion to the The Estate notes that Mickley-Tyne Valley Garden Centre is south-east of Ponteland as it narrows the gap listed as a possible re-development for other land uses site between Ponteland and Newcastle and as such but that its area of 1.238ha is reduced to 0ha available land. does not follow the original 5 purposes of the In the light of this, it places more emphasis on the Green Belt. Stocksfield on the other hand is infill. development of the Estates land in Stocksfield and in There are many community objections to the particular the release of at least that area in the beginning of premature planning application this site has the plan period. attracted. Lugano have been refused permission for 280 dwellings at Birney Hill.

Question 36

Para 9.114 is too brief although the Council was unaware of this proposal. The 1720 dwellings in the remainder of the Central Delivery Area should be concentrated in the East Tynedale area which includes Stocksfield. It is better located, more sustainable from its rail connection and offers greater housing choice than Slaley, Hartburn or Longhorsley.

Policy 6 should be amended to reflect these comments.

SJS Potts Ltd CharteredBrowne Town PlannerSmith Bakerpage 14

2. Strategic Housing Land Availability

Assessment (SHLAA) – Call for Sites

The Estate notes that the Core Strategy requests a The Estate has engaged Allan Short Transport Consultancy to call for sites. determine the access shown on the attached master plan and layout. The next step is to do a Highways Scoping Report with NCC The last SHLAA contained the Estates site in and traffic surveys at the appropriate time of year (March/April Stocksfield as Site 2463 Land at Stocksfield south of 2014). A Travel Plan and Transport Assessment would then ensue. A695 16.55 ha 100% greenfield red for suitable and We are advised the highway network can accommodate this level of amber for both available and deliverable. The Green development and that no design mitigation measures are required. Belt review makes the site suitable, the Estate can confirm by virtue if these representations it is both It has also engaged Intersect Architects (Julie Booth) to draw these available and achievable. Therefore the suitable up. These are set out next n this report and seek to demonstrate the argument is up for review and the available and suitability of the site to accommodate approx 386 dwellings, initially achievable items should now be green in the next shown as all 4 bed detached. The density with affordable housing SHLAA. added would increase to the 250 figure used elsewhere in this report. The comment that a housing site of this size is inappropriate in this location had not been tested by An OS base 1:5000 plan indicates the Estate's ownership by a red the current process nor the assertion that it would line boundary. Four photographs of the site follow showing the reduce the openness of the Green Belt. There are topography and access. Two plans have been done to date. The first other sites which are far more open that this one. plan is diagrammatic. The second is an early draft just to validate the numbers used in this report. For the avoidance of doubt the Estate does not comment on the other large SHLAA site 2531 13.14ha except to say it has highway issues not shared by the Estates site. SJS Potts Ltd Chartered Town Planner page 15

SJS Potts Ltd Chartered Town Planner page 16 SJS Potts Ltd Chartered Town Planner page 17 SJS Potts Ltd Chartered Town Planner page 18 SJS Potts Ltd Chartered Town Planner page 19 SJS Potts Ltd Chartered Town Planner page 20 SHLAA – Call for Sites

Housing Land Availability

The current Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) The adopted Local Plan Policy GD2 figure for the former district of Tynedale where seeks to promote other suitable land Stocksfield is located is 100 dwellings per within the build up areas for development annum. Hexham hasn’t been maintaining its ahead of sites that are greenfield outside ‘main town’ role as sites haven’t come forward of settlements. Clearly the Estates site in until recently. Stocksfield is inside of the settlement boundary. The Northumberland Five Year Deliverable Sites Assessment (2012-2017) only looks at the NPPF no longer seeks to impose a former district as a whole. Tynedale is amongst brownfield/greenfield sequence. Given areas that now fail to identify a five year supply the sixe of the proposal in Stocksfield of deliverable sites falling short of the RSS there are few other sites which could requirement by 496 dwellings (adjusted to accommodate this scale of development reflect an over provision of 178 units for the within settlement boundaries. 2004-12 period and the application of a 20% buffer) by 174 units. At the time of this latest The site is sustainable given the railway assessment there were only 343 units in station, bus links etc. A preliminary Tynedale with planning permission. There are highway check by Allan Short Transport no windfall sites coming forward to be counted Consultants has informed the draft under NPPF. Nor are there any minded to grant master plan provided by Intersect approvals coming forward. Corbridge which is a Architects in this report. lower tier settlement than Hexham has recently had pp granted on a safeguarded site.

SJS Potts Ltd Chartered Town Planner page 21

The Northumberland Five Year Deliverable Sites •These shortfalls are contrary to para 49 of NPPF Assessment (2012-2017) in the former Tynedale indicates •The Housing Requirement is derived from NERSS 2008 that:- •The SHLAA with a base date of 2010 cannot inform the 5 year supply until its updated. •Only 74% of the supply is expected to be deliverable ((322 •Extant not yet started planning applications add Corbridge units) 50 and Hexham 122 •There is also not a 5 year supply with under delivery in the •Live pp under construction second half of the plan period •Potential sites dev plan allocations not yet started •A buffer of 20% is applied to assist making up the shortfall •NPPF para 47 deliverability assessment •Requirement 2011-16 115 2016-21 100 •NCC recognises it has a shortfall of deliverable housing •Shortfall is not a result of market conditions as demand is supply of 2176 dwellings or 61% of the adjusted 120% the highest in the County in Tynedale it is due to a shortage requirement. This gives rise to a presumption in favour of supply. under NPPF. •Tynedale not only cannot meet the RSS requirement form •More specifically the former Tynedale District, in which this planning permissions but it has a deficiency in housing land site is located, has just 65% of the identified housing supply to achieve the requirement. requirement. It is clear that there is currently a lack of •The Core Strategy comments that sites in Prudhoe may deliverable sites with planning permission in the former add to the supply but these are unallocated. district to meet future RSS requirements and a deficiency in housing land supply to achieve housing requirements.

SJS Potts Ltd Chartered Town Planner page 22

Project Specification to be provided by the Estate

The Estate has commissioned SJS Potts Ltd to provide the following in support of this site over the next 3 months. More will follow once the Delivery Document is further forward (we would wish to be part of its 3. Northumberland Draft Delivery Document production):- further Work

•Transport Assessment & Traffic Survey The Estate suggests that the following further work set •Master Plan/Layout out in the project specification above, the site at •Flood Risk Assessment Stocksfield could be considered as follows :- •Phase 1 Wildlife & Ecology Report •Topographical Survey •Deleted from the Green Belt •Representations to the Core Strategy & •Safeguarded for future development within the Plan SHLAA/Housing Land Availability 5 Year Assessment. period and/or •Assessment of potential CIL items in addition to •Allocated for residential development in whole or part affordable housing and a sports centre shown on the •Be subject to making up a Plan shortfall or layout such as:- •Phased from the outset 2016-2031 - Bus service contribution •Contribute via the CIL to affordable housing and a new - Relocation site for Broomley First School sports facility with associated infrastructure - Public footpaths improvements. - Subsidy for Community worker, Annual Village Show etc The original Painshaw Field Estate in Stocksfield was - New public parking for school, shops etc planned in 1911 to extend over the subject site, so this - Community Bus for the elderly proposal fulfils the original planned settlement form. - Youth Forum and Community Trust Fund for projects run by Parish Council

SJS Potts Ltd Chartered Town Planner page 23