As the Mayor and her Cabinet, supported by unelected Council employees of the highest level who are seemingly unanswerable to the voting public, failed to even discuss a residents’ petition (over 2500 signatures) asking the Council to protect further areas of green field sites by having them re-designated as green belt, they showed once again their total disdain for the public. Indeed the report to Cabinet merely stated that the Mayor did not see the Green belt being changed by the Core Strategy. This was enough to stop the petition itself from being debated at Cabinet. view report here
It is worthy of note that, since the publication of the Core Strategy Preferred options (CSPO) proposals, the Mayor has shown no desire, that is evident to the residents, to get any part of those proposals altered. This is despite several petitions objecting to the damage they and accompanying Planning Applications will do to North Tyneside, as well as a well-orchestrated and vocal campaign through the Press and in the Council Chamber. She has absolutely refused to engage with community groups to discuss the CSPO proposals. It is noteworthy that there is no rush to publish the Core Strategy as the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is due for publication later this month or next.
Mayor Arkley and her Cabinet have now twice rejected the wishes of the Full Council and, despite requests from the Full Council so to do, she refuses to engage with the relevant community groups.
Thus, the Mayor and her Cabinet show the same disdain to the Full Council that they show to us, the residents.
We can only hope that the Planning Committee will do what the Mayor seemingly refuses to do, and actually listen to residents.
Further, residents must show the Mayor through the ballot box both this May and especially next, that politicians have no right to act in defiance of the residents.
In short, she has shown she will not work with or listen to community groups so we believe she should stand down and allow someone to fill her shoes who does believe in what we see as proper and genuine democracy; a democracy that is not twisted by party politics being held above the desire to serve the community.
Quite bizarrely and in total ignorance of the fact she twice ignored the wishes of the full council (the last time was only seconds earlier).
The elected Mayor of North Tyneside Linda Arkley attempted to shift blame for the core strategy proposals suggesting that concerned residents should speak to their local councillors saying that the full council, who she just overruled again, will have the final say.
Whilst there is an element of truth in the Mayor’s claims, in that the full council can overrule the final draft core strategy eventually and as long as 2/3rds of the full Council object.
The Mayor completely ignored the fact that every decision on the core strategy taken thus far has been taken by her and her appointed cabinet chums. More importantly, council planning refusals have been overturned on appeal, in part, because of her core strategy preferred option proposals. Even the Scaffold Hill developers, Northumberland Estates, have claimed the land has already been allocated for housing as part of the LDF.
Each time the full council has tried to intervene in Linda Arkley’s Core Strategy plans (request for a referendum, request to halt core strategy for proper community involvement and request to consider our petition to give land surrounding our country parks green belt/wedge protection) she has ignored their wishes.
North Tyneside Council has 60 elected councillors, 3 for each ward. Each year for three years 20 councillors seats go up for election, the fourth year is for election of the Mayor. The elected mayor can them appoint councillors to his (or her) cabinet. It is the mayor and the cabinet and not the full council who have responsibility for many policy decisions.
Whilst it is technically correct to say the full council has a debate on the Mayor's Core Strategy proposals and they can vote it out (2/3rd of councillors must object). This only happens toward the end of the Core Strategy process.
Days, Months or Years before the full council have their debate on the final version of the Mayor's Core Strategy Proposals, developers can use the Mayor's prosals (Preferred Options or Drafts) to steamroll inappropriate housing development such as the Earsdon/Wellfield development.
One of the major criticisms of an Elected Mayor is that the role attracts mavericks and self-publicists (source: Wikipedia) but more importantly it results in situations such as on North Tyneside where the cabinet appears hell bent on pushing their core strategy proposals even though they are plainly against the wishes of the elected majority of council.
If the Mayor expects that the full council may ultimately oppose her Core Strategy proposals, why does she continue with it in its present form? Why doesn't she take on board the concerns of the elected councillors (and local residents)? Does she seriously consider it prudent to continue on her present course only for years of work and money to be thrown down the drain because the full Council rejected her core strategy?
Does she think the full Council will warm to her ideas and grow to accept and embrace her short sighted and ill conceived proposals.... or is it perhaps that she knows by then that it won't matter because most of the planning applications on her "Key Housing sites" would have been approved on appeal in the same way as the Core Strategy "Key Housing site" at Wellfield....
[Interesting facts: North Tyneside is one of only 12 local authorities with an Elected Mayor - in four of those authorities campaigns are underway to abolish the elected mayor post]
On of our major concerns is that the Mayor has apparently chosen to protect some of the most sustainable (*read best land to build on) areas around Killingworth and Murton from housing development in her Spatial Strategy. But she has failed to consider any protection for our Country Parks or Wildlife Corridors. The present UDP (thing the Core Strategy will replace) protects designated Wildlife Corridors and the land surrounding and supporting those wildlife corridors.
[*based on North Tyneside Council’s assessment]
Why protect Killingworth and Murton which will result in destruction of vital wildlife corridors (such as at Scaffold Hill) and ultimately will lead to the destruction of the Country Parks those corridors depend on?
We have had no explanation from the Mayor, the only explanation we can proffer is that members of the Mayor’s cabinet (present and former) either live in or represent wards adjacent to those protected areas.
The Mayor’s attempts to distance herself and lay blame elsewhere for the her core strategy decisions are somewhat at odds to the recent election leaflet distributed around Whitley Bay. The leatflet put out by Michael McIntyre (the organ grinder of the mayor's local party) repeatedly refers to the Core Strategy as "The Mayor's proposals". Moreover, Mr McIntyre refers to the Mayor's proposals to "protect green field sites" – The only green field sites protected by the core strategy are Killingworth and Murton.
Mr McIntyre can be contacted on the leaflet email address mcintyre4whitley@live.co.uk for "views on any of the issues mentioned (in his leaflet)"
The application is just slightly revised version of the original but just enough to make it a new application. This means that any objections can be ignored by the council and MUST be made again.
Some sneaky developers employ a tactic of resumbmitting planning applications to wear down or reduce the number of objections, by claiming earlier objections were not against their revised plans. The developers at Whitehouse farm have also submitted a fresh/revised planning application.
Northumberland Estates now appear to be saying that there is strong local support for their proposals to develop the Scaffold Hill Green-Field site. Including a claim that over 88% of people attending their exhibitions were in support of this development.
Some details from the plans are available in our article Northumberland Estates Planning Application for 450 houses at Scaffold Hill Holystone... (Opens in a new window)
We also have details of some traffic impacts in the article Holystone Planning Application - Traffic impact and Road Safety... (Opens in a new Window)
Full details of Northumberland Estates Planning Application 11/01600/FUL from North Tyneside Council's planning portal (opens in a new window)
Examples of some objections to the proposals PDF Document (23Kb)
Many people think "spoiled view" or "reduction in property value", and "noise, dirt and disturbance during construction", are among their best reasons for objecting. WRONG! In deciding whether to Approve or Refuse a Planning Application the Council cannot accept any of these reasons as valid planning objections, no matter how true they may be
When deciding on a planning application the council can only take into account Material Planning Considerations The most common of these are:
Comments and Objections on the Northumberland Estates planning application can be made:
On-Line: At the North Tyneside Council planning portal (opens in a new window).
TICK the button labelled Stance: Object if you object to the Planning Application"
AND Select "Commentor Type: Representations"
By Letter (snail mail): Post Comments and Objections to:
Planning Manager
North Tyneside Council
Quadrant East,
The Silverlink North
Cobalt Business Park,
North Tyneside
NE27 0BY
E-mail: You can email comments and objections to the council's planning officer at development.control@northtyneside.gov.uk (please cc the case officer julie.lawson@northtyneside.gov.uk)
PLEASE REMEMBER, you MUST STATE the planning reference number 11/01600/FUL, Site Address Scaffold Hill Holystone, and the fact that YOU ACTUALLY OBJECT in order for your objection to be effective. You should also include your name, address and postcode
If you want to object to the planning application you must make sure your objections are with the Council by 1st February 2012.
It’s important that you write any objections in your own words, but it is also important to adhere to valid planning objections (see above).
In addition to your own comments and if you agree, please add this to your email/letter or comments (re-phrase it if you wish).
.jpg)
An additional recommendation to cabinet was tabled by Cllr Jim Allan (and fully supported by the Liberal and Labour Parties) to ask the Mayor Linda Arkley and her cabinet to shelve the Core Strategy in light of developments in the National Planning Policy and localism Bill.
The full Council can only debate the petition and make recommendations to the Mayor and her cabinet. The Mayor and her cabinet have the final say on what goes in the draft core strategy put before the council.
During the debate their appeared to be some side stepping by the Mayor who expressed blame on the "previous administration". Clearly she must also view the Core Strategy as a shambles as do we. Whoever the mayor blames, the inalienable fact remains that it was she (and her cabinet) who chose to release the Core Strategy Preferred Options for consultation in 2010. If she wasn't happy with it she could have changed it; she didn't...
The Mayor commented that the consultation was one of the longest. However one of the reasons the consultation was extended was because residents' did not hear about it and quite rightly complained. She missed the point of the amendment entirely; Cllr David Corkey was vocal in telling the council they must listen to the people and take their views onboard. The mayor can have as many "consultations" as she likes but unless she takes stock and acts on residents' views her "consultations" are moot exercises in futility.
During the debate Councillor Michael McIntyre tried to dismiss 6000 residents as a "Small Group of Objectors". Presumably then, he must denigrate his own voters (1823 at his last election*) as just a third of a small group? This looks to us like staggering arrogance, that of a Councillor who is up for election next May. To dismiss residents in such a way must surely show what he thinks of the residents of North Tyneside? Mr McIntyre may represent his constituency of Whitley Bay well – we will leave that to the residents of his constituency to decide next May – but he is clearly out of touch with, or doesn’t care about, the will of the wider people of North Tyneside.
Speaker after speaker stressed the importance of listening to residents yet the Mayor and her colleagues voted against an amendment which would ask Cabinet to listen to, and engage in meaningful discussion with, the residents. The only Councillor in the Mayor’s party to vote differently was Councillor Norma Peggs. Yet if Councillor Peggs was listening to the residents of Holystone (which is in her ward) then, surely, she should have voted for the amendment? The Mayor (Linda Arkley) has failed to speak to us in any meaningful way for the past 17 months, has failed to answer emails from us and many residents and is clearly as dismissive of 6000 residents as is Councillor McIntyre. She has, however, met with Northumberland Estates concerning proposals to develop Scaffold Hill in Holystone (one of the sites identified in the petition as a key wildlife corridor).
The Mayor tried to convince the public gallery that it is not her decision yet it was her decision to not accept a petition of 3500 signatures against the Core Strategy Preferred Options (CSPO) Proposals and it was her decision – along with five Cabinet colleagues – to dismiss an earlier request for a referendum of residents about the CSPO Proposals. Further it was her decision to agree to meet with Northumberland Estates (along with her cabinet Member for Planning) when they wished to show her their development plans. Will it also be her decision to reject this petition’s request to have the wildlife corridors re-designated as green belt?
The Mayor constantly states she is listening. So she may be, but she is either NOT HEARING OR IS IGNORING what she hears. In the 17 months since the CSPO were released to the public her CSPO Proposals have stayed exactly the same and she has not had them altered in any way to address the concerns of residents. The Council to Protect Rural England today published a document echoing this same issue where they state the new planning set-up leaves us with the situation where "There is every a danger that we are set to continue in the same broken cycle of too many councils and developers too often consulting and not listening." Could this have been written about our Mayor and her colleagues?
Perhaps most disappointing of all is that during the debate neither the Mayor nor any of her colleagues even acknowledged the wildlife corridors or the importance of the Rising Sun Country Park and Gosforth Park. Does she and her Cabinet colleagues therefore dismiss the future residents of North Tyneside as not worthy of having quality green spaces fed by these vital wildlife corridors?
*source Wikipedia
During the debate Cllr Michael McIntyre labelled those opposed to the Core Strategy proposals to destroy our Country Parks as "Small Group of Objectors" who are akin to "not on my doorstep" objectors; likely, this is McIntye speak meaning NIMBY (not in my back yard). If this is true then surely it's the pot calling the kettle black.
All we have seen from Cllr McIntyre and his party (including the Mayor and her entire cabinet) have been actions serving to protect their own "backyards" from housing development. NIMBY? indeed Mr McIntyre. Representative of the people? I think not!
(Cllr Michael McIntyre is leader of the North Tyneside Council Conservatives Party)
According to a resident of Hadrian Park, Northumberland Estates have a team of young ladies going around Hadrian Park trying to get residents to sign a petition in favour of Northumberland Estates' planning application for the development of 450 houses at Holystone. A Development that will lead to the ultimate destruction of the Rising Sun country park as we know it.
Neadless to say, local resident Michael, refused to sign when he received a visit today.
We have asked Northumberland Estates for comment but they have so far not responded.
The deadlines for planning application representations have now passed - even the target determination deadline is well and truly gone.
We don't know when the planning committee will determine the Scaffold Hill application but some have suggested it will be at the next planning committee meeting which is scheduled for next Tuesday 22nd November 2011.
As of today the Scaffold Hill application is NOT showing on the agenda for the 22nd November planning meeting so it's unlikely to be discussed at that meeting.
