Last month, we submitted our initial objection to the Cell A/B1 application, which could see 1,200 houses within metres of Havannah Nature Reserve. We have now submitted a second objection and are awaiting further information about the legalities of putting school playing fields in Cell B1, which does not align with the Newcastle Great Park Masterplan. You can read our lengthy objections below and submit your individual objection here: https://publicaccessapplications.newcastle.gov.uk/…/applica… __________________________________________________________ From: Rachel Locke Subject: Re: 2017/0666/01/OUT Cell A and B1 Newcastle Great Park Date: 4 July 2017 at 22:35:48 BST To: "Lawless, Kath" Cc: "Sunter, Tom" , adam.nilsson@newcastle.gov.uk Dear Kath Lawless, Re: 2017/0666/01/OUT | Outline Planning Application: (all matters reserved): Development of 66.55ha of land comprising up to 1,200 residential dwellings (Class C3), education provision for both primary and secondary aged children (Class D1), playing fields, public open space and associated infrastructure. | Cell A and B, Newcastle Great Park, Brunton Lane, Newcastle upon Tyne Further to our initial representation of 4th June 2017, for which we are still awaiting a full response, this letter sets out our detailed objection to Cell A. We are still awaiting Newcastle City Council’s legal position on Cell B1 and will submit further representations upon receipt of the requested documents. In response to the applicant’s proposal for the Master Plan and Design and Access Statement to become the blueprint for reserved matters applications, our objections are sufficiently detailed and require significant amendments to the master planning documentation and scale of proposed development. This application fails the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) for the natural environment. It conflicts with several saved Unitary Development Plan (UDP) policies for nature conservation and Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan (CSUCP) Policy CS18. Furthermore, the application fails to meet the objectives of the Newcastle and North Tyneside Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP). We have several specific concerns relating to the ecological assessments and supporting information submitted with the application, which we have addressed in detail below. Harm of Major Significance to Farmland Birds Grey Partridge, Lapwing, Willow Tit, Skylark, Starling, Song Thrush, Mistle Thrush, Tree Sparrow, Linnet, Redwing, Fieldfare and Yellow Hammer are priority breeding and wintering bird species found in Cell A. All are species of high national conservation concern in accordance with the Birds of Conservation Concern 4: Red List for Birds. There are less than 1000 recorded breeding pairs of Willow Tit nationally. A significant number of wintering bird species at Cell A are on the Amber List, including Mallard, Bullfinch, Stock Dove, Dunnock, Reed Bunting, Meadow Pipit, Snipe and Kestrel. The ecological assessment accepts the proposal would result in loss of ground nesting farmland species including Lapwing, Grey Partridge and Skylark. Cell A supports bird species and habitat of functional importance of county value. County ornithological value is equivalent to the level of importance and protection normally afforded to a designated Local Wildlife Site (LWS). We remain concerned that the application refers to population levels in the county context of Northumberland, rather than Tyneside. We therefore request the ecological assessment is amended to include further appraisal of the impact of the loss of this farmland to ground nesting birds in Tyneside. Further appraisal will demonstrate an adverse affect of major significance to farmland bird species and wintering bird species, and the need for significant offsite mitigation. NPPF and PPG sets out a ‘mitigation hierarchy’ for developments that impact biodiversity and states that ‘if significant harm cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.’ An outline application must mitigate and compensate for all impacts in its own right and cannot rely on other measures associated with the extant consents. The application does not propose sufficient compensatory measures for farmland birds and refers to landscaping along the Ouseburn corridor, A1 and within Cell C3 as suitable mitigation for residual impact on these species. The applicant must provide additional mitigation for farmland birds outwith the NGP boundary, on existing agricultural land within its ownership. This can be achieved by way of a planning obligation in the S106 agreement. These areas should be suitably managed to compensate for the loss of Cell A habitat and the applicant must demonstrate how the proposal can contribute to requirements of the Newcastle and North Tyneside BAP, and its targets for farmland birds. Harm of Major Significance to Havannah Local Nature Reserve, Havannah and Three Hills Local Wildlife Site and Three Hills Picnic Area Local Wildlife Site Havannah and Three Hills Local Nature Reserve is a regionally important wildlife site and hosts a wide variety of habitats, partly due to its post-industrial environmental conditions. These habitats include: purple moor grass and rush pasture, lowland dry acid grassland, lowland meadows and lowland heathland BAP priority habitats. � The reserve supports what is now believed to be the last known breeding population of red squirrels in Newcastle. The red squirrel is a protected species in the UK under Schedules 5 and 6 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act (1981). The reserve also provides habitat for the dingy skipper butterfly, which is a UK BAP species. There are a limited number of dingy skipper sites in Newcastle and North Tyneside, due to isolation and loss of habitat. Increased recreational pressures on the dingy skipper habitat in Havannah, namely the lowland heath, would result in increased threat of trampling of vegetation in larval and pupal stages, thus compromising the existing population. The lowland heath in Havannah is one of only two such areas in Newcastle and this habitat cannot be easily recreated. The application acknowledges the construction phase and completed development would have a significant increase in levels of human activity around the reserve, but provides insufficient analysis of the impact of increased recreational pressure on such an ecologically sensitive site. Noise, footfall, vehicular traffic, lighting levels and pollution levels, would all have a significant adverse effect. The proposed buffer along the northern and eastern boundary of the application site, adjacent to Havannah and Three Hills Local Nature Reserve would be wholly inadequate in preventing disturbance, displacement and mortality of protected species during both construction and completion of development. The land is allocated as Strategic Open Space (SOS) in the NGP extant consent and the application does not seek to provide a buffer beyond that required by the extant consent and its S106 legal agreement. The buffer zone appraisal refers to much smaller developments and does not consider the impact of larger developments on ecologically sensitive sites. The size and density of the proposed development must be taken into account when determining the appropriate width of the buffer. We contend the width of the landscaped buffer should be a minimum of 50 metres to reduce disturbance and displacement as a result of increased human activity and lighting levels; inhibited movement corridors for mammals; risk of mortality from traffic collisions and predation from domestic pets. In order to achieve this, the number of proposed dwellings should not exceed 800 units: this is only 80 less than the number set out in CSUCP Policy NN4. The proposed outdoor sports facilities could be relocated to south of the widened landscape buffer within Cell A to provide an additional 'buffer' of non-built development. Loss of Hedgerows Hedgerows provide vital resources and habitat for mammals, birds and insects and provide corridors that allow dispersal between isolated habitats. In particular, hedgerows around Havannah and Three Hills Local Nature Reserve provide dispersal routes for red squirrel. There has already been a 46% loss of hedgerows across the wider NGP site. A loss of approximately 2000 square metres of species-poor defunct hedgerow and 160 metres of species-rich hedgerow is predicted as a result of Cell A development. This loss, and the lack of detail around replacement planting, is unacceptable given the importance of this habitat for wildlife and connectivity. The application must therefore be amended to retain existing hedgerows. Further compensation would also be required by way of a major replanting scheme on adjacent land, outwith the NGP boundary. There are opportunities to strengthen the biodiversity value of existing species-poor hedgerow by replanting gaps in nearby farmland, thereby complying with Newcastle and North Tyneside BAP targets. Harm of Major Significance to West Brunton SLCI The proposed application would have a significant adverse effect on West Brunton SLCI. Under the current proposals, roads and housing would directly abut the woodland and grassland habitat on all boundaries, with the exclusion of the northern boundary. West Brunton SLCI would be isolated as a result, and its function as an ecological stepping stone would be compromised, thus resulting in harm of major significance. The construction of new housing adjacent to this site would irrevocably damage the delicate ecosystem, comprising grassland, wetland and woodland habitats. The ecological assessment states that construction of housing in the vicinity has potential to result in an adverse effect of major significance through alteration to drainage or pollutant incidents. Due to the close proximity of the proposed housing, the risk of such an impact is high. We would therefore expect an additional planted buffer of at least 20 metres in width around the entirety of the SLCI and a wider wildlife corridor to the south. This would be in line with the NPPF, which seeks to achieve biodiversity enhancement by buffering important sites. It will be necessary to reduce housing numbers to 800 units, in order to achieve these compensatory measures. Impact on Great Crested Newts Havannah and Three Hills Local Nature Reserve and the surrounding wetlands outwith its boundary supports a significant great crested newt population. In line with the recommendations of Natural England, we contend additional surveys should be undertaken to ensure the correct number of surveys in suitable conditions. The conclusions on great crested newt impacts and mitigation are unreliable and must be repeated and submitted prior to determination of the application. Post-Development Interference Impacts The post-development interference impacts have not been adequately assessed, in particular those associated with large-scale housing developments during construction and subsequent occupation. This presents a serious issue across all sensitive designated areas including Havannah, Three Hills and West Brunton, resulting in an adverse impact of major significance. Roads and associated traffic will sever existing wildlife movement corridors for mammals and foraging and commuting routes for nocturnal species including bats. Human activity levels, hard surfacing, fencing, built development, lighting and domestic pets would have a catastrophic impact on protected species. A reduction in the proposed number of residential units is the only way this harm can be mitigated for. To conform with saved UDP Policy NC1.7, the application must provide appropriate offsite compensation measures to ameliorate the severe disturbance and displacement of wildlife habitats. Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) places a duty on all public authorities in England to have regard to conserving biodiversity. ‘A key purpose of this duty is to embed consideration of biodiversity as an integral part of policy and decision making throughout the public sector, which should be seeking to make a significant contribution to the achievement of the commitments made by government in its Biodiversity 2020 Strategy.’ Unsustainable Scale of Development We have already noted this application does not comply with CSUCP Policy NN4 or its evidence base, which identifies the appropriate housing numbers as 880. The CSUCP did not assess the impact of the school facilities on the strategic and local highway network. Consequently, transport assessment must be robust in relation to trip generation associated with the school facilities for 2160 pupils. It would appear a school catchment area has not been made available to inform the appropriate scale and likely impact on the internal and external highway network. The highway network assessment is based on an over simplistic assumption that 17.3 % of NGP households have at least one child between the age of 0-14 in identifying the proportion of pupils originating from the NGP itself. It is likely that far greater numbers would be travelling into NGP from other areas. A high proportion of NGP housing is already occupied, and children of school age in these dwellings are unlikely to move from their current schools en masse, therefore the figures do not reflect the likely representation at the time of the school's opening in 2021. There would be a far higher proportion of car journeys to and from the site. Even if it is assumed the level of local NGP pupils is correct, this still reflects a massive 63% of pupils travelling from non NGP areas. This would inevitably lead to greater traffic generation and an unsustainable pattern of development, contrary to the aims of the NPPF to minimise journey lengths and reduce the environmental impacts associated with traffic congestion. This application does not justify school facilities of the size proposed and a reduced school size would align more accurately with the NGP catchment. The aim of NGP was to provide a 'parkland' development, driven by the creation of an attractive, landscape-led approach with high quality open spaces. An overarching landscape principle of the extant outline consent was to create a pattern of woodland-arc from Woolsington Hall to Gosforth Park, focusing on SOS cells A1, B1 and C3 in the north of NGP. How can this objective align with this application? The application, as currently proposed, would exacerbate the harmful impacts on biodiversity. It is unacceptable in principle and would fail the 'mitigation hierarchy', as set out at paragraph 118 of the NPPF. We do not consider the above issues can be dealt with by condition and therefore must be addressed by reducing the scale of development, as set out above, along with the creation of significant onsite and offsite mitigation and compensation measures for wildlife. We therefore request a meeting with the case officer and ecology officer to discuss the aforementioned points. Yours sincerely, Rachel Locke Save Newcastle Wildlife On 4 Jun 2017, at 22:55, Rachel Locke wrote: Dear Kath Lawless, Re: 2017/0666/01/OUT | Outline Planning Application: (all matters reserved): Development of 66.55ha of land comprising up to 1,200 residential dwellings (Class C3), education provision for both primary and secondary aged children (Class D1), playing fields, public open space and associated infrastructure. | Cell A and B1 Newcastle Great Park Brunton Lane Newcastle upon Tyne Save Newcastle Wildlife has several concerns relating to the principle of this proposal and the legality of any decision to grant outline planning consent. We will be submitting a detailed objection in due course, but require an initial response on the following issues, as a matter of urgency. The school playing fields are proposed for an area of Strategic Open Space (SOS) defined as open space compartment B1 in the Newcastle Great Park master plan and extant outline planning approval. Both the Consortium and Newcastle City Council have failed to recognise Cell B1 as inextricably linked with the earlier reserved matters planning approvals on Cell B, relating to Sage and park and ride developments. The S106 legal agreement states an approved landscaping scheme for this area should have been completed ‘by the end of the first planting season after the start of the development in Cell B’. We understand a submission of SOS landscape proposals for Cell B was approved in 2002 and the Sage and park and ride schemes, taking up the majority of the Cell B, were well underway by this time. The Sage offices comprised a large footprint with associated car parking which, along with the park and ride, would have required significant offsite compensation measures for nature conservation. Sub cell B1 is the only area of SOS associated with Cell B and, as such, mitigation must have been focused there. Given the enormous scale of the development, Cell B could not have been justified in environmental terms without significant enhanced habitat and parkland in B1. We understand the relevant DCC approvals are 1999/1300/49/DCC and 1999/1300/86/MAM for the submission of SOS landscape proposals for Cell B1. We would like to request scanned copies of these applications, via email, as soon as possible. We would also like to see scanned copies of the ecological assessments and mitigation Strategy for Cell B, relating to planning consents referenced 1999/1300/10/RES and 1999/1300/11/RES. The applicant states, in the Masterplanning, Design and Access Statement (MDAS) that B1 is ‘a currently underused area of SOS north of Sage. The area has been only partially landscaped’. We note however that the B1 area is well used, particularly by dog walkers, despite its continued use for agriculture rather than parkland. We would question why the comprehensive landscaping scheme for the SOS for B1 has not been implemented in its entirety, as per the requirement of extant consent. We would further question the apparent lack of implementation over the last fifteen years, despite the trigger in the S106 requiring its completion by the end of the first planting season after the start of development in Cell B. The area’s management as open space and for nature conservation, as part of the extant Landscape Strategy, should be guaranteed in perpetuity through the S106 agreement. We are of the firm opinion that the current application for school playing fields within B1 cannot and do not legally align with the approved landscape scheme for this area and the overarching Newcastle Great Park strategy, both of which are enshrined in the Newcastle Great Park Master Plan, the outline consent, the reserved matters consents and the S106 legal agreement. This is particularly pertinent given the contrast in landscape character and the change of use that would manifest, were the proposals to go ahead. The three proposed playing fields would cover most of the B1 site including a hard-surfaced MUGA and grassed sport pitches. The amenity grassland associated with the pitches would be intensively managed with fertiliser and herbicides and with regular cutting would offer no ecological value, thus resulting in a net loss of biodiversity. The pitches would also be characterised by high fencing, given its proposed school use, further impacting on the landscape character. We note also the applicant's statement, in the MDAS, that Cell B1 and the playing fields in that area would need to be 'controlled', presumably referring to prohibited public access. This clearly conflicts with the 'openness' requirement that should be preserved in relation to Green Belt uses (in which B1 is located) defined in paragraph 89 of the NPPF. None of this aligns with the extant approval and its landscape strategy, which should guarantee the use of B1 in perpetuity as community woodland, accessible open space and ecological habitat, as mitigation for Cell B development but also as an integral part of the approved Newcastle Great Park landscape strategy. The B1 landscape scheme, if implemented in accordance with the planning consent, would now have comprised mature woodland and wildlife habitat. The harm to nature conservation interests through a lack of its implementation, as required by the extant consent some fifteen years ago, is undoubtedly severe. Any decision on the current application seeking to override the extant planning consent must therefore be deemed legally flawed. The applicant refers to Policy NN4 of the Core Strategy, which allocates Cell A for approximately 880 homes by 2030 and education provision by 2021. We argue neither this policy, nor its supporting text, includes any reference to B1: clearly the policy relates to Cell A only. Discussions between the applicant and council have no legal status, but have seemingly resulted in the preparation of an 'indicative' plan showing the proposed playing fields in B1, none of which has been subject to public consultation. If the council is minded to allocate land in the Green Belt for sport pitches, this would need to be included in the forthcoming Draft Development and Allocations Plan, which would be subject to full public consultation, including the preparation of a consultation draft and revised draft, prior to an Examination in Public. The indicative plan to which the applicant refers therefore has no weight in planning terms, nor does it have any legal status. The terms of NN4 are clear in requiring that comprehensive masterplanning at Cell A (NN4a in the Core Strategy) is planned to respond to extant consents at Newcastle Great Park and the relevant parts of the existing master plan and SPD. As stated in the applicant's MDAS ‘a major part of the landscape baseline is the implementation, delivery and long term management of the approved landscape strategy’. Cell B1 is already part of this implementation and the approved landscape scheme relating to it should therefore be sacrosanct. The applicant's notion that the proposed playing fields are allocated as such in the Core Strategy is merely wishful thinking. A public engagement leaflet issued by the applicant, as part of its community involvement, is misleading in that is states ‘Cells A and B1 are now allocated for further housing and provision of a school (or schools) and playing fields’. It would appear the applicant construes B1 as an overspill area for the playing fields, which cannot fit onto Cell A only because the proposal is for 1,200 dwellings rather than 880, as allocated in the Core Strategy. There can be no planning justification for this increase in proposed dwellings. The applicant also refers to supporting text in the Core Strategy, which states, at paragraph 16.108, that there is further capacity for housing beyond the plan period. We interpret this as referring to the neighbourhood growth areas (NN4b and NN4c), not Cell A. The Core Strategy makes clear that the allocation for Cell A is 880 dwellings and the council's capacity modelling of the highway network for the evidence base has been undertaken on this basis. The council would also have taken into account the need for a lower density scheme on Cell A due to its environmentally sensitive location and its potential impact on West Brunton SLCI, Havannah LNR and Havannah Pit and Three Hills LWS. We also question the applicant's suggestion, at paragraph 7.32 of the planning statement, that a planning condition can be imposed which requires a further transport assessment to be undertaken prior to the construction of dwellings over and above the 880 which can be assessed during the planning process. If the number of dwellings proposed cannot be properly assessed at this stage due to uncertainty surrounding highways issues beyond 2030 then, outline planning permission cannot and should not be granted. An outline application which specifies the number of units proposed must include supporting documents to justify the total at the time the application is considered. Outline approvals have a time limit of up to ten years, so consent would expire well within the Plan period to 2030. The allocation of 880 homes should therefore be reflected in the outline application, to provide the certainty needed in the planning process. We contend this application is flawed in terms of the principle and legality of the proposed location of playing fields at B1, and the proposed development of 1,200 dwellings. We request this letter is logged as our initial objection to planning application 2017/0666/01/OUT and that the serious planning breach, as a result of the lack of implementation of the approved landscape scheme at B1, is logged as an enforcement complaint. We will be submitting further representations in due course in relation to our detailed assessment of planning issues relating to this proposal. In the meantime, we look forward to receiving your response to the above legal issues and copies of the documents relating to Cell B and B1, at your earliest convenience. Yours sincerely, Rachel Locke Save Newcastle Wildlife