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.
.jpg)
The latest exhibition brochure is clearly targeted at winning people over, with GP Surgery, Shops and a 100-acre extension to the Rising Sun being the selling points.
Except for some amendments, the content of the brochure is just the same re-worded nonsense we've heard before. That is, were it not for a new "red Rectangle" at the back of the Rising Sun buildings which I'm given to believe is a proposed MUGA area. Irony indeed....
The propaganda goes on "As well as a MUGA (Multi use games area) facilities for children could include an adventure play area, including a zip wire, a picnic area with facilities for the disabled, a formal play area with slide and see-saws and space for archery and a water feature." (my emphasis)
Of course all this is what could and not what will be done, Northumberland Estates might as well have added free space ship rides to the list for what it's worth.
I may be dumb sometimes but one thing I know for sure is that archery and children's play areas don't mix. What the hell are these people thinking?
The only conclusion for Northumberland Estates change of tact is that they've found kids who like zip wires (no suprise there), people who like allotments/the good life and now a couple of archery fans. All of whom are happy to stand up and support Northumberland Estates in return for some piece of pie. Would anyone really want an allotment underneath a multi-thousand volt pylon, with its established links as causal to leukaemia and childhood cancers?
Has anyone from Northumberland Estates ever been to the Rising Sun? It already has a play area, picnic area, adventure play area and a water feature.
Each page is boldly titled "The Rising Sun":
Of the 31 photo/photo realistic pictures in the brochure, only one shows a rendering of the houses (taken from an impossible angle too). The remaining 30 photos are all of feel good countryside scenes, the good life and happy faces. This is Rising Sun hard-sell, with the new message being pushed "100-acre extension of the Rising Sun"
What they don't tell you is that the Country Park will ultimately die a death because the houses they want to build will block the wildlife corridor. Nor do they mention that the 100 acre Country Park extension will only be leased to the Rising Sun (The new Rising Sun car park is on a five-year lease from Northumberland Estates)
New "Wildlife Corridors":
In addition to new flower meadows, planting new trees and hedgerows, they will be including new "Wildlife Corridors". Northumberland Estates really should use the term "Wildlife cul-de-sac" because the only remotely useful "corridor" (if wildlife would actually use it) leads from the Rising Sun to the new Doctors Surgey and Shops - This may be quite useful if the Rising Sun stag fancies picking up a 6-pack of Special Brew or a bottle of Lambrini (other brands are available) from the shops. Hard-lines if it wants to head to open countryside; it'll have to use the highway like everyone else.
We're all going to get cheap houses:
More than 100 affordable houses for the "local community". These won't be cheap houses for the "local community" to buy - see what they mean when they use the word affordable housing. Nor does it mean affordable rented housing for local people.
You'll never have to buy fuel again ?:
Nothumberland Estates are talking here about Geothermal Energy (technology not proved to be cost effective). They state, "with the cost of a borehole
shared by 1000s of houses we'll have free energy for life.". Reading further, its just research they are doing - we're not going to actually get it. But that doesn't matter with already sold a few people on the idea - their fault for not reading the small print. Even if they could do this this would not be viable in the time-scale for this proposed site.
Muggers Paradise:
Even with the new all weather MUGA (Multi use games area), Nothumberland Estates COULD include an adventure play area, zip wire, picnic area, play area, slide, see-saws and space for archery and a water feature. My emphasis on the word COULD (Hint you do know it doesn't mean WILL). Who would look after this site, who would pay the staff wages and where would the funding come from?
What's the point of this?
The deadline for comments on the planning application has already passed, so why are they doing this? This could just be to get
supportive feedback (note postage paid questionaire card attached to brochure) for either when they speak at the planning committee and bring forward a couple of allotment growers and archery fans in support, or potentially for an appeal if their planning application is refused.
In summary, do Northumberland Estates use both hands when they are shoveling the BS?
As part of Northumberland Estates' apparent plan to garner support they've include a postage paid questionaire asking if you support their plan for housing, etc etc.
Before the questions start Northumberland Estates have this to say "North Tyneside Council has allocated the land at Scaffold Hill for development as part of their Local Development Framework."....
This is NOT true, although the Core Strategy WILL be one of the primary documents in the LDF, it isn't yet part of the LDF - It's not even classed as a draft LDF document.
So why did Northumberland Estates say it? Who Knows... One thing's for sure, would you waste time penning your objections after you've just be told it's going to happen anyway?
People should be well aware that a planning application to build 450 should not hinge on the utterly false "benefit" of an 100 acre extension to the Rising Sun (even if it happens to be leased for longer than the five years the car park is leased for).
Northumberland Estates should be aware that before any attempt to use the results of their glossed-over questionaire that they have obtained informed consent. This means more than a glossy brochure and fairy tale, it means telling the truth....
What did they miss?
1) The proposal will destroy the wildlife corridor that passes across Scaffold Hill, this route is used regularly by the Rising Sun stag - they propose a "wildlife cul-de-sac" that stops at the shops and is adjacent two busy roads used by the new estate bus service
2) Their own traffic assesment show that the traffic resulting from the development will push the A19 and Wheatsheaf roundabouts well beyond capacity. They also acknowledge nothing can be done to improve the Asda roundabout. This will also lead to congestion in Holystone village.
3) Holystone Primary School, already at capacity, will ultimately have to reduce its catchment area - there is no land for a new Holystone school. It has been suggested by developers that children would just have to go to other schools elsewhere in the borough.
4) The Proposed new estate will result in more road accidents with children networking and meeting with their friends either side of the Holystone Bypass which will be at capacity.
5) The GP and small shops are intended to serve the new estate - if they are taken up as intended. Remember Northumberland Park was not supposed to have food outlets, but planning terms were relaxed because no one else wanted the units.
6) North Tyneside Council has already asessed green field land at Murton as being the most sustainable and enviromentally friendly option to build houses on.
Note: The mayor and her cabinet blocked building on the most sustainable greenfield land (Murton) when they released the CSPO for consultation last year - Guess where most of them live and which areas they represent? North Tyneside council didn't even ask the question "Should we save/build on Murton" or put that question to a sustainability appraisal. In fact, North Tyneside actually rejected concentrating building to the West of the A19 - this is where the majority of their new houses are now proposed.
Green Belt Confusion There is some confusion arising from the Mayor's statements about building on Green Belt. For clarification, there have never been proposals in the CS to build on the Green Belt (green belt land is rated as unavailable by the SHLAA). Unfortunately, it is not clear why the mayor repeated this unusual claim three times in her press release, but some residents' took it to mean there would be no building on their green fields.
In a nutshell, there were never proposals for CS housing on the legally defined green belt, and yes they still want to build on the remaining green fields - but not the Murton green fields (adjacent to where some of the cabinet decision makers live/represent). Most of the wards to the East of Murton are coastal and won't be negatively affected by the proposals.
This 58-page report of the Core Strategy Preferred Options goes in considerable depth but then comes up with little in terms of addressing residents’ concerns.
The document gives its rationale as based on the 2010 Statement of Community Involvement – if you remember that was the one that had only 22 respondents out of the 196000 people in the borough and ONLY ONE was a confirmed resident, whose comments were disregarded!
You are invited to submit comments on three growth "options", of which the Council is setting out Option 2 as the one they prefer (Essentially the same as in the core strategy preferred options).
"
The growth options we now want your views on are summarised below, and set out in full in the survey link. Each option looks forward 15 years. None of these options would mean building on Green Belt land:You may wish to read the full report here, but beware, 21 of the links to supporting documents DON’T WORK (correct at time of publication of this article) although we have asked NTC to remedy this.
The population would grow in line with Government projections by about 26000 with about 8000 more people of working age.
This is what we think they mean for Option 1:
The population would grow by about 26000 people of which 8000 would be of working age. The population would in line with Government projections.
The population would grow slower than Government projections by about 16000 with about 1800 more people of working age.
(Means population will grow by about 16000 less than Government predictions?)
This is what we think they mean for Option 2:
The population would grow by about 16000 people of which 1800 would be of working age. The population would grow slower than Government projections.
The population would grow far slower than Government projections by about 10500 with about 1500 fewer people of working age.
(means population will grow by about 10500 less than Government predictions?)
This is what we think they mean for Option 3:
The population would grow by about 10500 people but there would be a reduction in the number of working age people by about 1500 people. The population would grow far slower than Government projections.
The leaflet states "... the most sustainable and deliverable Greenfield sites would be developed."
WE ASK:
1. Which sites? NTCs own documentation shows the sites mentioned in our petition are NOT the most sustainable, so we maintain these sites should NOT be developed.
WE ASK:
2. Does this mean the Council is going to change which sites it intends to build upon?
WE ASK:
If so, why have the other sites not been identified so people can make an informed choice?
WE ASK:
If not, then why is the leaflet incorrect and misleading?
The questions at the bottom of the leaflet are (in our opinion) skewed to guide you towards choosing Option 2, the Council’s preferred option. Option 2 may be the best option but how do we know when we’re only given some of the necessary information?
As plain as day the propaganda machine splutters away....
According to the Councils own SHLAA and Sustainability Appraisal, the most sustainable greenfield site suitable for housing in the entire borough of North Tyneside has been excluded from the Core Strategy Key Housing sites. (see Housing Sites)
Scoring the highest and the most sustainable of all Greenfield sites in North Tyneside is Murton. Murton sits to the side of Monkseation (west of Whitley Bay and North of Preston) and is capable of accomodating all the new houses the Core Strategy would have destroy the Rising Sun Country Park and wildlife corridors.
Murton's high score on the Council Sustainability Appraisal means building houses there instead of any other greenfield site in North Tyneside (including the Rising Sun) has the LEAST environmental impact and the MOST BENEFIT to the borough of North Tyneside - Yet the Council (with little explanation) have EXCLUDED it as a Core Strategy Key housing site (with comments like "Site not required at this time"
How did they do that?
Somewhere before the Core Strategy Preferred Options was released for consultation by the Council Cabinet (currently Linda Arkley (Mayor), Glynis Barrie, Ed Hodson, David Lilly, Pam McIntyre, Paul Mason, Leslie Miller, Judith Wallace (Deputy Mayor) and George Westwater) they decided or approved the creation/retention of "Green Wedges" to protect Murton and Killingworth from future housing development... NIMBY you say? - neither the mayor nor any member of her cabinet have explained to us why they approved this. (One former cabinet member even took exception when we pointed out last year that he lived adjacent one of these green wedges). NIMBY Indeed?
Weren't they supposed to ask us?
Yes the Council should have asked North Tyneside residents as part of the Core Strategy Preferred Options consultation. They didn't... they must have forget.... well, not so much forgot to ask, they forgot to use the words "green wedge" when they asked you about a "A dispersed pattern of development throughout the borough" (CSPO preferred option 12B).
This is all very peculiar because the council's sustainability appraisal for CSPO option 12 actually "tested" a completely different question (one with "Green Wedge" in it). This means the question you were eventually asked must have been changed after the sustainability appraisal of the question was done.
Doesn't that create problems (test of soundness)
Potentially, the sustainability appraisal is inconsistent in many areas (The council won't even tell us who wrote it). It's really bad if they don't "test" the question they actually put out to consultation. Even worse that they didn't even put the "Green Wedge" question out to consultation too.
If the Core Strategy goes ahead in its present state, it will lead to house building on the least sustainable greenfield sites and all because of the Council Cabinet approval of the Murton and Killingworth Green Wedges. At a mininum, the Council are required to put this green wedge question to the residents and not make this "tough decision" on our behalf without having done so.
We need houses... (Yes, but build them somewhere sustainable. check holystoneag.co.uk for the facts. We've never said don't build only don't build in the wrong places)
Wherever we build people will complain... (So don't listen to any one? do the words Localism, consultation, election-time mean anything?)
Making tough decisions for people.... (That is unless you live near Murton)
Strange but true...
CSPO option 12A was to "Focus development to the West of the A19" - It was Rejected by the Council Cabinet.
Of the 3880 new homes proposed on CSPO Key Sites, 78% are to the West of the A19. If this was rejected by the CSPO/Council as unsustainable, why are the North Tyneside elected Mayor and cabinet actually approving it. (Tough decisions indeed)
Please email planning.policy@northtyneside.gov.uk if you would like them to clarify this or any other part of the documentation, or if you just wish to give them your opinions.
In the meantime, Happy fog-knitting!!
