Consultation Results

April 2015

Sunderland and International Advanced Manufacturing Park

The International Advanced Manufacturing Park (IAMP) is a joint City Deal venture between and South Tyneside Councils. The corresponding International Advanced Manufacturing Park Area Action Plan (AAP) will form a statutory part of the respective Local Plans for and South Tyneside Council.

Public consultation on a range of initial key issues, options and alternatives for the proposed International Advanced Manufacturing Park took place between 23 February - 27 March 2015.

An explanatory “Let us have your views” leaflet and consultation questionnaire were made available in council offices and libraries across Sunderland and South Tyneside, with a press release article published in local newspapers (Newcastle Chronicle and ) and in the two council’s respective residents’ newsletters. All consultation information, together with an electronic version of the questionnaire, was also published on Sunderland and South Tyneside Councils’ respective websites www.MAKEitSunderland.com and www.southtyneside.info/iamp.

Public consultation drop-in events were held at: Tuesday 10 March 10:00am - 3:30pm Washington Library, Independence Square, Washington 4:30pm - 6:00pm Washington Business Centre, Turbine Way, Sunderland Thursday 19 March 10:00am - 3:30pm Bunny Hill Centre, Hylton Lane, Sunderland Monday 23 March 1:00pm - 4:30pm Library, Cambrian Street, Jarrow Thursday 26 March 1:00pm - 4:30pm Boldon Village Hall, Boldon Colliery 5:00pm - 6:00pm Quadrus Centre, Boldon Business Park, Boldon Colliery

These were attended by some 35 people, including local residents, landowners, business interests and developers/agents.

Questionnaire responses were received from 81 people, the vast majority received from local residents (written comments are set out at Appendices A-C). Three other written responses were also received (see Appendix D). Supplementary and equality data from the questionnaire respondents are analysed at Appendix E.

2 Question 1: How big should the International Advanced Manufacturing Park be?

An independent Market Demand Assessment of the scope for growth in different key employment sectors in the North East over the next 20-25 years was carried out in Spring/Summer 2013. The research recommended that the primary opportunities for significant growth potential are in the automotive and advanced manufacturing sectors (assembly and alternative fuel technologies such as electric vehicles), as well as the offshore and renewable energy sectors, supported by logistics provision related to the automotive sector. The research identified three alternative growth scenarios:  ‘pessimistic’ - assumed a long period of on-going recession for the North East combined with structural changes in the international automotive industry that would result in the relocation of some production away from the region, with limited additional large-scale employment land required to support economic growth;  ‘moderate’ - identified scope for significant growth requiring an international advanced manufacturing park of around 140- 150 hectares in size, supporting the automotive and other advanced manufacturing sectors, renewable and offshore energy industries, plus distribution and logistics related to the automotive sector;  ‘very optimistic’ - a large-scale growth scenario requiring an international advanced manufacturing park of around 300 hectares in size, focused on the automotive sector, other advanced manufacturing, renewable and offshore energy technologies, with related distribution and logistics.

The analysis concluded that the moderate growth scenario was the most likely and that if additional land was not provided then new investment and job growth would be lost from the region. This analysis informed the original joint City Deal bid for an international advanced manufacturing park in the region of 100 hectares, providing around 5,200 jobs, but with the possibility to allow scope for potential longer-term expansion up to around 150 hectares (ie. the ‘moderate’ growth scenario).

Under this approach, while the international advanced manufacturing park would provide for some of the areas large-scale strategic employment requirements in these key growth sectors, additional local general employment land requirements for a wider variety of small and medium-sized business sector opportunities will also need to be provided for and allocated in the councils’ respective Local Plans.

Q1a – Do you support the business case for the international advanced manufacturing park in terms of the need for jobs and, in particular, the potential for growth in the automotive and advanced manufacturing sectors in the region? No response, 2, 2%

No, 17, 21%

Yes, 62, 77%

Q1b – Which of the following three economic growth options should be provided for by the international advanced manufacturing park? No Q1a = ‘Yes’ response, Very Pessimistic, 1, Optimistic, 19, 1% 1, 1% Pessimistic, 31% Very 12, 15% Optimistic, 21, 26% Moderate / City Deal, 42, 68% Q1a = ‘No’ No response, Very 1, 6% Optimistic, 0, Moderate / 0% City Deal, Moderate / 47, 58% City Deal, 5, Pessimistic, 29% 11, 65%

 42 people provided written reasons and comments in relation to their preferred choice (see Appendix A). 3 Question 2: Where should the International Advanced Manufacturing Park be located?

A Planning Assessment of alternative locations for the identified economic growth requirements across the North East region has also been carried out. This has assessed the potential capacity and suitability of other major employment sites and Enterprise Zones across the region, as well as the local supply and potential opportunities in Sunderland and South Tyneside.

Locations in the wider region included: Map of Alternative Locations considered in the Local Area

Northumberland Coastal Enterprise Centre (103ha) West Hartford (55ha)

Tyneside Newcastle Great Park (80ha) Riverside (92ha) Baltic Business Park (20ha)

Durham Hawthorn Business Park (22ha) Tursdale (120ha) Net Park (25ha) Wynyard (205ha) Amazon Park (52ha) South of (68ha) Heighington Lane West (70ha) Faverdale (120ha)

The evaluation of a range of key criteria (transport, size, suitability, location, adjacency, ecology and planning issues) suggested that the most appropriate location for providing for the identified sectoral growth needs and opportunities, particularly in the automotive and related supply-chain sector, was in the broad area where Sunderland, South Tyneside and meet. This area has strong physical and commercial connectivity benefits given its close proximity to the Nissan plant, the A19 and A194 trunk roads, and the Port of Tyne and Port of Sunderland. It is also a reasonably accessible location to the population of the wider region.

Q2 – Do you agree that the Sunderland-South Tyneside area is the most appropriate location for the identified employment land requirements to support economic growth in the automotive and advanced manufacturing sectors?

No, 18, 23%

Yes, 62, 77%

 21 people provided written reasons and comments in relation to the location of the proposed IAMP (see Appendix B).

4 Question 3: Where should the International Advanced Manufacturing Park be sited within this Sunderland-South Tyneside area?

Focusing on the identified Sunderland-South Tyneside primary area of search, options have been considered for land to the north of the Nissan plant, south of the A184, west of the A19 and east of the A194 and the former Leamside railway line. This analysis involved the consideration of physical and environmental factors, including the need to retain separation between settlements, to identify potential locations for an international advanced manufacturing park of around 100-150ha in size.

There are 3 possible approaches to the location of international advanced manufacturing park as shown on the following 3 plans along with an overview of the main planning considerations affecting each option:

Site A: 100-150ha site east of the former Wardley Colliery Disposal Point and Spoil Tip

 Significant traffic increase on the A184 and at the A184/A194(M) junction which is unlikely to be supported by the Highways Agency  Potential for a strategic access to the A194(M) although very weak access to the area around the Nissan plant and the Enterprise Zone  Does not address the commercial market demand for land around and adjacent to the Nissan plant and the Enterprise Zone  Does not support the growth of the automotive and advanced manufacturing cluster around the Nissan plant  Does create the potential for railfreight and/or Metro connectivity, although long-term plans for the Leamside line are uncertain  Requires an extensive reclamation of the spoil heaps on the site - the cost, viability and timing of which are unknown  Settlement separation function of the Green Belt can be maintained but creates a large “island” in the Green Belt  No undue disturbance to residential amenity

Yes, 25, 45% No, 31, 55%

5 Site B: 100-150ha site on land to the immediate north of the Nissan plant

 Close proximity to Nissan and the Sunderland Enterprise Zone which is of strong interest to the commercial sector  Part of the site already included within the draft Sunderland Local Plan Core Strategy  Good highway connectivity to the A19(T) via the A1290 Downhill Lane junction and to the A1231 Washington highway  Government’s Autumn Statement announced funding for improvements to the A19/A1290 junction alongside the Testos junction upgrade, which could help to better facilitate the IAMP project in this location  Supports the growth of the automotive and advanced manufacturing sector currently focused around the Nissan plant and the Enterprise Zone - enables coherent development of a major economic asset for the region with Nissan at its heart  Settlement separation function of the Green Belt can be maintained  Opportunity to connect to the Leamside line or a future Metro extension corridor serving the west of Sunderland  Need to consider potential impact on amenity of adjacent residential areas in Sunderland  Opportunity to improve the environmental value of the River Don corridor

No, 14, 21%

Yes, 54, 79%

Site C: A dispersed allocation across the two sites

 Would require about 75ha at the Wardley site and about 75ha at the north of Nissan site  Creates a challenging planning process which impacts upon timing and project delivery - two separate planning applications required  Creates two major projects each with its own infrastructure requirements instead of one - expensive and time consuming process  Does not provide a single strategic advanced manufacturing location - the benefits of co-location are lost  The project would not be of sufficient scale and coherence to enable it to compete for private investment with other European and worldwide locations  Settlement separation function of the Green Belt can be maintained  No undue disturbance to residential amenity

Yes, 10, 20%

No, 39, 80%

 48 people provided written reasons and comments in relation to their site choices for the proposed IAMP (see Appendix C). 6 Appendix A: Question 1 – How big should the International Advanced Manufacturing Park be?

For those who responded ‘Yes’ to Q1a = 62

 Q1b 'Pessimistic' Scenario 1: No additional growth = 1 . Nothing excuses irreversible 'development' of greenbelt land

 Q1b 'Moderate' / City Deal Scenario 2: 100-150 hectares = 42 . We should do something to get investment in this area . We should not be relying on automotive industry alone to make this park viable. Other manufacturing sectors should have equal or greater standing . Current economic state of the regions suggests we can achieve moderate growth. If we go for scenario 1, we will be caught short, and scenario 3 could also prove a major error should the economy falter . I believe it is the most realistic option, but land the size requited for 'very optimistic' scenario 3 should be available to expand into . To keep in line with the economy and set achievable targets . The reason I would back a moderate approach is purely selfish because of the amount of traffic in an already busy area . Nissan will continue to grow & can save costs by having supply base close by . Economic trends would suggest potential for this type of business. However there is a huge pull from London and the south east which will mitigate against the very optimistic scenario . I feel this will be good for both Sunderland and South Tyneside however we should be realistic rather than too optimistic . The area needs jobs coupled with sustained growth . There are already a great number of empty units on industrial estates across Washington & probably other parts of Sunderland & South Tyneside. Therefore to build option 3 could worsen this scenario and lead to even further decline. Parts of Washington look rundown due to these empty properties and make the town look tired and dirty. Not the concept for a new town . As expected, no mention was made in the last budget statement to support growth for the region. The vote on Europe could move Nissan out of the UK altogether . Don't want all investment in one sector, should have more diversity, different employment opportunities. Larger site could be large ugly area with too much traffic, damaging the landscape both visually and environmentally. Park - not clear, country park or car park being development . Moderate potential for expansion enabling: potential to attract additional parts / materials suppliers, in shoring of existing businesses, relocation of existing suppliers, Renault-Nissan alliance supplier opportunities . Realistic, supportable, maximum benefit v minimum

 Q1b 'Very Optimistic' Scenario 3: 300 hectares = 19 . Scale of workforce available, current regeneration with vantac and new business park in that area, this is a long term plan for future growth . As shops in Shields close. Factories open . Attempt to create an advanced manufacturing "Silicon Valley" type environment . Firstly I think this is an excellent opportunity for skilled jobs for local people and introduction of many highly trained people coming to the area in which people locally will be able to have jobs with serious potential for good career paths both locally and worldwide! Recently it has been brought to everyone's attention how in my opinion corrupt our current system can be both involving MPs and HSBC so I would hope that these sites will both directly and indirectly be contributing to local taxes etc to increase the capacity of local services and infrastructure to cope as well as provide improvements indirectly through tax to help resolve the growing problems we are facing due to cutbacks in all our essential services for example police fire ambulance and coastguard. I am not familiar with the sites and I am sure there are many brown field sites and areas in desperate need of redevelopment. It would be a terrible opportunity lost not to do so using this project and similarly it would be counterproductive to allocate 100%greenfield sites unless there is some form of area match where other spaces are purchased that were brown field sites and made into say parkland or nature reserves to counteract the loss of greenfield land excavated soil DTC could be reused etc and would justify the development plans. A big congratulations for bringing this to Sunderland. Environmental and health issues must be a primary consideration . We need to bring as many jobs as possible to the North East if we are to secure the future prosperity of the region 7 . Think big deliver big, think small deliver small . Take the Gold Standard plan with land area, and develop area as required so if moderate plan is achieved, you still have the area of land to develop in the future. Forward planning for 10 to 20 years . Suggest cautious optimism with a 3 phase strategy e.g. 30% yr 1-3, 60% yr 4-6 and 100% to year 10. A strategy review at each near end stage (Commencing yrs 2 and 5) . The scale should be large enough to encourage rail connectivity

For those who responded ‘No’ to Q1a = 17

 Q1b 'Pessimistic' Scenario 1: No additional growth = 11 . Build it on existing brown field sites, use the empty units that are available in the area, half the is empty or to the people who want to build this, why isn’t it being built at the bottom of their street. What about the people of Town End farm and who have to live with this monstrosity!!!!! . I can see little benefit from this further erosion of the greenbelt. The region already has countless unused units and other large units employing a handful of people on low wages . The traffic from Nissan in this area is awful at the best of time. The Nissan staff have no respect for the local people or area the same can be said of Nissan itself the area would be better off and safer without it . Because the North East of is already plagued by Nissan and any additional industrial activities are sure to worsen our country's carbon footprint . Your Market Demand Assessment is 2 years out of date & does not reflect current demand projections in the target areas . Area already congested. It will only make situation much worse . This area is being swallowed up by industry and development. Huge swathes of land are being lost to wildlife and for use by residents. Traffic and impact on local residents from the large amount of industry in this area is already an issue and this project will compound this situation . All existing brownfield sites should be investigated . Leave the green belt area as it is a safe area for our ever decreasing wildlife's natural habitat . Too much emphasis on automotive industry. Grove site at needs re-development. Highly skilled, well paid jobs desperately needed for Sunderland area

 Q1b 'Moderate' / City Deal Scenario 2: 100-150 hectares = 5 . As there are many factories standing empty cannot see reason to build more . I can see the potential for expansion of the automotive industry especially with regard to electric cars. However the renewable energy industry has been around a while and does not seem to have prospered much plus the off shore industry is plummeting into a slump due to the low oil price.in addition surely an expansion of electric cars would significantly reduce the offshore industry. I would therefor consider a cautious approach to the development so the 100-150 hectare development would be safest whilst allowing room for expansion . No reason to have everything within walking distance of Nissan, all companies have and need transport. Scatter the site . Suggest that any development is spread throughout the south of the Tyne to include north Durham as opposed to all focus being in one area. All should benefit from growth in employment

 Q1b No response = 1 . Insufficient information is presented to make a sensible response to either Q1a or 1b. Can't support a business case if none has actually been set out

For those who did not respond to Q1a = 2

 Q1b 'Very Optimistic' Scenario 3: 300 hectares = 2 . This will stop the development of the north east land sea aircraft museum . The need for jobs has never been greater, however, the transport situation needs to be addressed re. public transport for workers

8 Appendix B: Question 2 – Where should the International Advanced Manufacturing Park be located?

Those who responded ‘Yes’ to Q2 = 62 Those who responded ‘No’ to Q2 = 18

. Nissan is already calling to many shots I will be living opposite this, has anybody given any consideration to the people of Town End Farm!!! . Yes, in terms of strategic transport links, No, in terms that some other brown fields sites could have been redeveloped . The traffic coming and going into Nissan is more than enough without more traffic being allowed . Pollution, noise levels unacceptable green land disappearing at an alarming rate, for what! A mere 5,200 jobs over the next 20 years . It’s GREEN BELT! If the site was split it could be shared round brownfield sites . Sunderland has for too long been in decay and this will make no difference. I would add that were we now applying for city status, instead of during the eighties we wouldn’t even get that . As before we have enough disruption from Nissan . Although this is a good place to build it is near residential areas. You can already hear and smell Nissan day and night from Hylton Castle. Why not try consolidating already run down industrial estates and making use of already tarmacked areas . Nothing excuses 'development' of greenbelt land. Especially when we are not short of derelict former industrial brownfield sites . Apart from congestion it will cause, other areas with access to A1 would be viable and these areas need jobs . The impact on residents, traffic, wildlife (and the related benefits to people of green spaces), flood risks from loss of natural defences . I can't comment as I'm not familiar with the sites however 4, 5, 6 & 7 look like green belt I cannot comment also as I do not know the specific needs of the companies . Ruining natural protected green belt . Palio. Yards would be better - already have the road links I required and a much larger area of unemployed to recruit from . You should not be building on green field sites when there are existing brown field areas standing unused . Central to region which will generate additional balanced growth in other sectors . Due to the proposal to wipe out a 'green belt' it would preferable to target brownfield sites and deserted industrial parks (e.g. South of the Wear (ex shipyards)) first. The loss of green belt is permanent and will never be re-instated. Sites 8,9,5,6,10,2 would be more suitable looking forward consideration should be made to development of docks and sea transport . Whichever location is chosen it is imperative that within the planning process the providers of the present totally ineffective public transport start their operating day in time for early shift work and continue for late shifts and nights. I can't see this happening though, as you seem to be crawling to Nissan and they need to sell cars??!! . All options (ABC) are on green belt land, I think it should go on location 8 Pallion Yards - re use existing industrial land also near proposed new river bridge along existing dual carriageway (n/bank) to A19. Also has sea access to transport materials and produced goods . Supporting automotive cluster in Sunderland. Strategic value of one - site development in bringing greater benefit to the area . Creates an industry hub close to Nissan with ability to use rail connection

9 Appendix C: Question 3 – Where should the International Advanced Manufacturing Park be sited within this Sunderland-South Tyneside area?

Those who responded to Site A Wardley: ‘Yes’ = 25 ‘No’ = 31 Those who responded to Site B North of Nissan: ‘Yes’ = 54 ‘No’ = 14 Those who responded to Site C split between A and B: ‘Yes’ = 10 ‘No’ = 39

. Nowhere near a housing estate, and already brown field land . Already and industrial park and relevant roadworks access in place . B gives better transport links. But have we fully considered redevelopment of brown field sites . Significant improvement in surrounding roads already complete/near completion . Common Sense - Nissan need land, why would that be an option miles away when it is available next door! Also, the removal and reclamation at Wardley could prove prohibitive in cost . Creates one clear site which benefits from ready access to A19, Port of Tyne in close proximity to Nissan. Supports the growth of the automotive and advanced manufacturing sector currently focused around the Nissan plant and the Enterprise Zone - enables coherent development of a major economic asset for the region . Taking large amounts of traffic away from Nissan . Access is already readily available leaving land to be developed on in the future should further expansion be required . Better access routes and closer to Sunderland for access . Site A we have access to the A194, A184 and consequently the A19. No large residential area nearby access to a redeveloped Leamside line would alleviate congestion problems somewhat in all everything in a block. There are no other alternatives . Leaves the other site for any future growth but still focus on one big site for co-location and infrastructure . Living at Hylton Castle is like living on an industrial estate already. This will make it 10 times worse . Our answer based on area of land already spoiled . Logical to develop a single site, avoid duplication of ground work, prefer site A . Development at site A would leave site B available for Nissan itself (the main target market for the new development) the opportunity to relocate another part of its critical E.U. operation closer to its manufacturing plant . Closer to Nissan & A19, but would require slip road as too much traffic at A1290 junction already . I have chosen site A as I think the old disposal site would benefit from this and people working on this site would leave the road system before Testo's Roundabout allowing the current Nissan traffic to flow as it does now, without a significant increase. This option would also allow for site B in the future to possibly house an alternative motor manufacture to Nissan and prevent reliance upon one automotive manufacture . Complexity of two projects, additional overhead, inherent road infrastructure problems with the Wardley site . Nothing excuses 'development' of greenbelt land . Easiest and best area for both . Need one identifiable area with best transport access . It is important that this site is located next to Nissan which has good road links and the possibility of a rail link . To be frank I'm not happy in the slightest that the green belt is being lost in this manner. It seems such a shame. Sunderland has lost so much industry surely there are sites that could be used that aren't green belt at all no mind 100% green belt this is unusual for councillors to grant planning permission for a dwelling on green belt no mind a huge site for industry I'm in opposition to the site unless they redevelop and purchase old industrial sites first and return them to green belt prior to destroying green belt of an equal area. Similarly this land is relatively cheap on the basis that it is green belt and not allocated for development surely there are many parties that would be very interested in this land surely it is unfair to allocate this land to one project without allowing it to go on the open market for development there must be loads of companies with interest in these sites. ALCAN closed in Blyth with the loss of many jobs surely there are industrial areas like that which are not subject to the same level of controversy for development! It comes across in my opinion that some of our councillors are being indices into

10 making these decisions, I truly hope this isn't the case but with the likes of the development on seafront it is fairly clear in my opinion that it has happened in the past therefor the insistence on rejuvenation of old industrial or contaminated areas to green belt of the same size per area of green belt is insisted upon in the area at the developers expense whether converted to forest parks playing fields agricultural pastures etc . Are there no alternative sites to those outlined, which are all fully on green belt land? . Appears the most appropriate . Because of the reasons stated Site B would be my choice. However, I consider the A1290 is not up to the task, and believe it will not be able to cope with the extra traffic that would be anticipated. It already struggles to cope with the traffic demands from the Nissan Plant at peak production shift start and finish times. I work at the Nissan plant and the general consensus from the people that I work with is that the road can't cope and the newly completed Downhill Lane / A19 junction works have only made matters worse! . Evidence supports this option . Value for money, in connection with other road projects in area, also allowing viable extension of Metro west of Sunderland possible passenger/freight. Only down side would be Housing would need to look at, as single glazed windows allow a lots of traffic and factory noise in . It’s simply logical to provide land where it is commercially needed - option B is the only option as far as I’m concerned . Cost to move goods into the Nissan plant, issues around residents and traffic pollution around areas specifically Sulgrave Road which already has a problem with speeding LGV's . Reclamation of poor quality land rather than pure greenbelt build . This retains a green belt. I am in favour as I appreciate there will need to be significant thought put into a MASSIVE truck park for the local area - which may go some way to addressing our current problems in the area. It is essential that this is considered at the initial planning stage. I will be asking questions in relation to this at the consultation events. It is wholly unacceptable and unsafe for high numbers of trucks ( such as we currently have) to be parking up overnight at the roadside - where there are no amenities - this situation needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency . Site B will have a lesser impact on the green belt and the homes of existing residents. There will need to be a huge amount of attention paid to developing a truck park as there is already a massive problem with trucks parking overnight at the roadside in the area around our home (an average of 10 per night) from existing businesses . Location adjacent to likely point of use makes sense, but none of the site descriptions put forward make reference to environmental constraints at each location. There are designated site and/or protected species issues at each location that need to be taken into account and an area wide master planning exercise to incorporate the development into the existing landscape is needed. The development does have the potential to deliver wide ranging biodiversity and green and blue infrastructure enhancements that can generate economic, social and environmental benefits. However, the development also has the potential to cause significant harm to their natural environment and by doing so will fail to deliver its full potential both economically and socially. This could be a show case for the wider region and the 3Rivers Local Nature Partnership would welcome the opportunity to become more involved and support delivery of a truly sustainable development . The former Wardley Colliery is designated a Local Wildlife Site. Recognised as the largest early successional brownfield site in South Tyneside, it has records of wall brown and dingy skipper butterflies. The site may also provide habitat for breeding lapwing and skylark. In accordance with the NPPF and requirements of the SEA directive any forthcoming Area Action Plan should promote development of the least environmentally sensitive sites and ensure reasonable alternatives are assessed. Whilst Site B also includes/borders the River Don Local Wildlife Site (a habitat for water vole and otter) it may, with mitigation, provide a less environmentally harmful alternative location. The assessment of both sites should consider the loss of best and most versatile land and factor any loss into the Sustainability Appraisals. In addition, the AAP and supporting SA should consider potential effects on protected species and loss of priority habitat. When considering measures that would avoid harm to biodiversity, the AAP should firstly seek to avoid rather than mitigate any effects. Compensation should be considered a last resort. In accordance with the Government's Environment White Paper and NPPF the AAP must deliver net-gains in biodiversity through the incorporation of priority habitats that protect, create and enhance the wider ecological

11 networks. Opportunities to deliver these environmental objectives should be considered from the outset, otherwise sustainable development may not be achieved . Site A is more sensitive archaeologically. There are well preserved ridge and furrow earthworks from medieval and post medieval ploughing. The earthworks around Boldon are amongst the best surviving in . Area retains considerable ridge and furrow, with what appear to be large ditched boundary banks. They are part of the medieval landscape associated with West and East Boldon medieval villages. There are crop marks relating to World War Two anti-aircraft obstructions. The site lies adjacent to Scots House and grounds, a listed building. The site north of Nissan may retain buried archaeological remains but there are no upstanding earthworks and no adjacent listed buildings and gardens. The North of Nissan site is adjacent to existing manufacturing sites . Transport links . Site B would destroy the green belt whose purpose it is to provide a break between towns. It is a natural corridor for wildlife and has many good environmental features that would be lost. Of the farms that exist in site A they are productive, traditional farms which have not been farmed intensively. They are well managed and support many families and employees in the agricultural industry and its suppliers. They are visited by educational institutes and have been shown to host a large and diverse wildlife population. This wildlife would be displaced some of which is protected. The opportunity to use an existing industrial site (A) as opposed to concreting over green, productive land is the preferred option. To destroy green belt would be unforgivable in such an urban area . It is the most prestigious site with excellent transport links and being next to Nissan is a distinct advantage . Prefer site A because it will be visually more acceptable and will still deliver the agenda. Sunderland has allowed factory sheds to be built across the City without care for the visual impact. Stand on Monument and that is all you can see to the north from this visitors attraction. No lessons have been learned from scars on our landscapes from mining and shipbuilding. The A1231 is becoming an industrial corridor, the sheds are too close to the road and experience shows this is what we can expect more of. No mention of joined up thinking 'holistic view of the city' that Paul Callaghan talks about the city vision - good place to live, work, art culture, the environment, tourism. Therefore not inspired to support larger scheme . Site B - optimum proximity to NMUK operations, optimum logistics schemes and benefits, east of access to existing road infrastructure (NB close liaison required on road infrastructure and impact on future NMUK operations) . Sunderland and Washington have already got plenty on their doorstep . Not as much impact on the Green Belt as one big sprawling site would have Port of Sunderland ex Groves site, old Philadelphia workshops could be developed . The more jobs the better . All as Q2 . Good fit with Nissan. Strategic site impact - possible benefit of extension of metro business case. Good road links. Site is easily separated from Green Belt . Meet Nissan just in time management. Road links in place . Previously developed land with rail connection and planning principle established for general rail use. By making land close to but not next to Nissan the site will be available for wider range of uses

12 Appendix D: Other Written Responses

- Why bother with this sham of a have your say when the decision has already been made and does not include the feelings of local residents, for years we have been refused planning permission on the grounds that we live in ‘green belt’ area which we now see does not apply when it comes to the council bending over backwards to comply with Nissan’s wants, the roadworks on the A1291 were originally scheduled to start in June 2014 and to last for 5 months it is now 10 months later and the work is nowhere near completion, does anyone from the council ever check on this, I am now assuming that the continuing work is being done at no cost to the council as the original estimate on time and budget was submitted and accepted by the contractor and council, please try and respond to my points with an explanation.

Office of Rail Thanks for your letter of 23.2.15 in regard to the consultation on the International Advanced Regulation Manufacturing Park for the North East Region. We have reviewed your proposals and supporting documents & note that your proposals do not affect the current or (future)operation of the mainline network in Great Britain.

It might be helpful if I explain that the office has a number of key functions and duties in our role as regulator of Britain’s Railways. If your plans relate to the development of the current railway network including the operation of passenger and freight services, stations, stabling and freight sites (including the granting of track and station access rights and safety approvals) within your administrative area, we would be happy to discuss these with you once they become more developed so we can explain any regulatory and statutory issues that may arise.

I have attached a copy of our localism guidance for reference, which can be found at: http://www.rail- reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/localism-guidance.pdf

Gateshead Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to comment on proposals for an International Advanced Council Manufacturing Park (IAMP). The IAMP has potential to be a large-scale development of strategic significance not just for South Tyneside and Sunderland, but for the wider region as a whole. It is therefore fitting that key stakeholders, including neighbouring local authorities, are provided the opportunity to provide comments on the proposals as they emerge.

1. Scale The material provided in support of this consultation is very limited. While in principle we support proposals that will contribute to the increased economic resilience of the region, given the lack of supporting information it is difficult for Gateshead Council to determine whether the scale of growth envisaged in proposals for the IAMP represents a realistic and sustainable scenario.

Reflecting Planning Practice Guidance, it is important that the evidence base supporting proposals for the IAMP is transparent and accessible. In this respect the assumptions used to project growth in the automotive and advanced manufacturing sectors should be robust and realistic. It is also important that there is transparency in the methodology used to translate the projected growth of 5,200 jobs into a need for additional employment land provision of a scale of 100 hectares to 150 hectares.

The potential scale of the IAMP means that it will have significant implications on the emerging Local Plans for Sunderland and South Tyneside, and the proposal should be fully integrated with the employment land reviews of both Councils.

It will also be important to understand the implications of the IAMP for labour supply within the area, including the availability of suitably skilled workers within the travel to work area. Any expected consequences for the housing market should be considered when determining housing need in both Councils’ emerging Local Plans. In keeping with the National Planning Policy Framework, regard should be given to the duty to cooperate on strategic issues which cross administrative boundaries, particularly strategic priorities including housing and employment growth and provision of infrastructure.

13 2. Location The connectivity and accessibility of the broad location proposed seems appropriate for the IAMP. Proximity to the Nissan car manufacturing plant means that the area also provides opportunity to support growth in the automotive and related supply chain sectors. However, it is of critical importance that the scale of development, and mix of uses at the IAMP complements the existing employment provision within the wider catchment area, and that the displacement of economic activity from existing employment areas is minimised. Of particular relevance to Gateshead is the potential detrimental impact the IAMP may have on employment land in the East of Gateshead. Restrictions on the types of uses within IAMP is likely to be required if the negative effects on other employment areas are to be minimised.

The evidence base prepared to support the emerging Gateshead and Newcastle Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan (CSUCP) has identified that the Newcastle Great Park, Newburn Riverside, and Baltic Business Quarter are not suitable sites to accommodate growth in the automotive and advanced manufacturing sectors.

However, the Team Valley Trading Estate (TVTE) currently accommodates an existing cluster of advanced manufacturing businesses and a number of businesses operating in the supply chain for the Nissan car manufacturing plant. There is likely to be significant opportunity for development of the TVTE over the coming years, given the continuous churn of older buildings that are likely to be redeveloped by the private sector. In addition, regard should be given to the capacity of sites at Follingsby Park, and the extension South of Follingsby Lane to accommodate general B8 uses that may be considered to feature within the IAMP. Follingsby Park has achieved a critical mass of development that ensures market prominence as a prime warehouse and distribution location, and the South of Follingsby Lane extension offers a low-risk development opportunity in a site that is proposed to be removed from the Green Belt within the emerging CSUCP. The Tyne Marshalling Yard, although located within the Green Belt, may provide opportunities for rail freight-related development.

The Planning Assessment carried out for the IAMP should reflect the findings of the emerging CSUCP with regard to suitability of existing sites in Gateshead and Newcastle to accommodate automotive and advanced manufacturing uses. The Planning Assessment should also consider the suitability of the sites identified above to accommodate growth in these sectors.

3. Site options Reflecting the requirements of the duty to cooperate, South Tyneside Council and Sunderland City Council should work jointly with Gateshead Council and other relevant agencies to consider the constraints, opportunities and impacts relating to the potential development of Wardley Colliery Disposal Point and Spoil Tip (site A) and the North of Nissan site (site B).

In broad terms there are a number of key cross-boundary issues associated with delivery of the IAMP (in addition to those identified within the consultation questionnaire document), irrespective of which of the three site options is selected. In particular, close consideration should be given to:  Development of the scale indicated would be likely to have a significant impact on labour resources in the wider area, drawing in workers from Gateshead and potentially increasing traffic in this location. Consideration should be given to these factors in developing proposals for the IAMP, incorporating close consultation with adjoining Local Authorities.  The impacts of the IAMP are likely to extend to generating increased housing demand in the area, as workers from the wider region seek to relocate close to their place of work. Proposals for the IAMP should consider the impact of the IAMP on the housing market area, and should also incorporate close consultation with adjoining Local Authorities.  The potential displacement of economic activity from Gateshead’s existing industrial areas, particularly those in the east of the Borough (East Gateshead, Felling, Portobello Road, and TVTE) should be assessed, and potential negative impacts mitigated wherever possible through planning restrictions on the scale of development and mix of uses. 14  Given the close proximity of both of the proposed sites to Gateshead, proposals for the IAMP should not detract from the policy framework relating to the South of Follingsby Lane site in the emerging CSUCP, and in particular should not compromise Gateshead Council’s efforts to enhance the River Don Wildlife Corridor, including incorporation of SuDS and water pollution control measures. Mitigating impacts on the River Don corridor at either site would require provision of an ecological buffer, to maintain the integrity of this shared asset.  The importance of maximising sustainable transport access to the site, providing access to employment opportunities for Gateshead residents and minimising unnecessary additional traffic generation should be a key consideration in proposals for the IAMP. Pedestrian and cycle routes, and provision of bus services in this location are currently poor, and should be improved through development if sustainable transport objectives are to be achieved. It will also be necessary to provide mitigation of residual traffic impacts of the proposal through road and junction improvements.

Site A The development of this site would result in the loss of Wardley Colliery Local Wildlife Site, considered to be the largest and most valuable example of open mosaic habitat on previously developed land in South Tyneside. The site is known to support a wide range of statutorily protected and priority species, and also forms an important component of the Follingsby Wildlife Corridor. Development of this site for the IAMP would have ecological implications that would be difficult to remediate or mitigate to an acceptable degree.

Provision of general B8 distribution and warehouse uses at this site in particular would have potential to detract from the value of Follingsby Business Park. For general B8 uses within the IAMP, a phased approach may be appropriate to minimise impacts, whereby B8 uses are only considered acceptable where there is insufficient capacity at Follingsby Park and South of Follingsby Lane.

In this respect, Gateshead Council requests that if site A is identified as an appropriate location for the IAMP, the proposal is developed with close consideration to the potential capacity of development at the South of Follingsby Lane site in Gateshead. An approach of aligning the development of both sites would have important benefits in ensuring that the sites complement each other in terms of mix of uses, phasing of delivery, and provision of measures to mitigate impacts on traffic, ecology and water management.

Site B The ‘North of Nissan’ site straddles the River Don Wildlife Corridor, a valuable asset shared with Gateshead Council. The River Don supports a broad assemblage of plant and animal species. More generally, the area supports a patchwork of arable and grass fields bound by hedgerows, with a small number of farmsteads / dwellings, and wooded copses. The site makes a considerable contribution to the landscape character of the area, which would be fundamentally altered by development of the scale proposed. If proposals for this site are progressed, Gateshead Council would seek further detail from Sunderland and South Tyneside Council on the potential impact that the proposal would have on the landscape character of Gateshead

Concluding comments We would welcome the opportunity for further discussion with both Councils as detailed proposals for the IAMP are developed. An approach which incorporates open dialogue with key stakeholders throughout preparation of proposals, combined with a transparent evidence base will allow issues to be addressed early in policy preparation, and will result in a proposal which is better able to withstand scrutiny at examination.

15 Appendix E: Supplementary and Equality Questions

Please tell us whether you are responding to this consultation as a... (please tick all that apply): [‘Local’ = South Tyneside, Sunderland or Gateshead, ie. living, working or owning land within these boroughs]

70 60 68 50 40 30 20 9 5 6 10 1 0

 59 respondents provided their contact details for adding/updating our mailing lists.

Equality information (optional and confidential, for monitoring purposes only):

Sex (72 responses) Do you have a disability or long-term illness? (66 responses)

Yes Not stated 10% 11% Not stated 18%

Female 27% Male 62%

No 72%

Age (71 responses) Ethnicity (73 responses)

Under 17 Black / Black Chinese Mixed Other 18-24 0% British 0% 0% 1% 3% 1% 25-34 Arabic / 75+ over 4% Middle 2% Eastern Not stated Not stated 0% 10% 65-74 12% 35-44 Asian / Asian British 5% 15% 4%

55-64 26% 45-54 White 33% 84%

16

17