We have written to Newcastle City Council ahead of tomorrow's meeting, asking for the application for 1,200 houses adjacent to Havannah Nature Reserve to be withdrawn and resubmitted. We are of the view the council has acted unlawfully and that the application - which will result in further loss of green belt - does not meet the criteria for the 'very special circumstances', which are required by national planning policy for development in the green belt. We have also written to the Secretary of State asking him to use his powers to call in the application on the grounds that it would conflict with national policy (see below). ____________________________________________________________ Dear Rt Hon Sajid Javid MP, Re: ‪2017/0666/01/OUT | Outline Planning Application (Amended Proposal): (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 with fencing and changing pavilion (amended plans received on 19 October 2017), ecological enhancements and habitat creation (as per Updated Biodiversity Mitigation and Management Plan received on 3 November 2017 ),Updated FRA and Drainage Strategy (received on 3 November 2017), Highways Technical Note (received 20 and 21 September 2017) , including Addendum to EIA - Noise Chapter (received on 22 November 2017) Updated Strategic Routes Plan, and public open space and associated infrastructure Addendum to Environmental Statement (received April 2017) for Newcastle Great Park, Cell A and Cell B1, by Newcastle Great Park Consortium EIA - Noise Chapter 7 (Addendum received on 22 November 2017) | Cell A And B1 Newcastle Great Park Brunton Lane Newcastle upon Tyne We are writing to request call-in of the above major planning application, due to be considered by Newcastle City Council's planning committee on 15th December 2017, with a 'minded to grant' recommendation. We have made detailed representations on the application in correspondence dated 4th June, 4th July, 4th December and 14th December 2017, with regard to, inter alia, significant objections relating to substantial harm to Green Belt and misinterpretation of national and local policies. The proposals conflict with national policy on Green Belts, as set out in Section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). We therefore request you take the following matters into account when deciding whether to call in the application for your own determination. 1. UNLAWFUL INTERPRETATION OF GREEN BELT POLICY AND SUBSTANTIAL HARM TO THE GREEN BELT CAUSED BY INAPPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF is afforded significant weight in planning decisions as a material consideration. Land known as Cell B1, where proposed major development includes school playing fields, fencing and a changing pavilion, is defined as Green Belt in the Newcastle and Gateshead Core Strategy Urban Core Plan (CSUCP). The proposal would enclose 6.58 hectares of land, whereas the extant consent is for parkland with unrestricted public access, associated with the wider consent for housing and economic development, at Newcastle Great Park. The relevant local and national policy in relation to Green Belts is Policy CS19 Green Belt and the NPPF (Paragraphs 79-92) respectively. Paragraph 79 of the NPPF states: 'The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of green belts are their openness and their permanence'. Paragraphs 87-90 of the NPPF set out exceptions where development in the Green Belt will not be subject to a 'very special circumstances' test but may be subject to some other criteria of assessment. Paragraph 89 refers specifically to the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt and states that such development would be inappropriate. It then states there are certain exceptions to this. Amongst these are 'appropriate facilities for outdoor sport....as long as preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it'. None of the exceptions listed at Paragraph 89 of the NPPF can be applied to proposed development in Cell B1. The proposed pavilion would only be consistent with Paragraph 89 if proposed in relation to existing outdoor sports facilities. Extant consent for Cell B1 reflects strategic open space, ecological enhancement and associated woodland. The purpose of the extant Cell B1 approval is intrinsically linked with ecological compensatory measures required for previously completed Cell B development, namely the Sage and Park and Ride developments. The planning references for these approvals are 1999/1300/10/RES and 1999/1300/11/ RES, respectively. If, hypothetically, the building proposed in this location fitted within the listings at Paragraph 89 (for example, a bird hide) the true impact of such development on the openness of Green Belt cannot be assessed because the submitted 'Parameters Plan' lacks sufficient detail. This plan, denoted as 'indicative and to be confirmed at detailed design stage' cannot be relied on in terms of providing any certainty of the building's siting, scale and massing; details which are essential is assessing the impact on the openness of the Green Belt. The proposal for school playing fields has now been amended to include fencing, which would ubiquitously reflect security fencing, likely to be 2.4 metres in height. Paragraphs 89 and 90 of the NPPF do not refer to such development as an exception to inappropriate development. It follows that the proposed major development, with enclosures surrounding over six hectares of land, must be defined as harmful to Green Belt. It would be averse to 'openness' (defined in Green Belt case law as the absence of buildings or any other form of development) and therefore conflict with the NPPF. Attempts to screen fencing through landscaping would not address the impact on openness. Openness is a distinct, more significant issue relating to Green Belt, which should be assessed separately to visual impact. Furthermore, the prohibition of unfettered public access at all times across the site would be in stark contrast to the open character of the approved use of the site as parkland for residents and ecological enhancement for wildlife, as legally required by the extant consent and Section 106 legal agreement. Playing fields, fenced or not, do not fall within the specific criteria set out at Paragraph 90 of the NPPF and therefore constitute inappropriate development in Green Belt. Paragraph 89, properly interpreted, is only concerned with the construction of new buildings so is not relevant either. The proposals in Cell B1 therefore conflict with the purposes of including it within Green Belt, defined in the adoption of the CSUCP in 2015. The context of Policy NN4 of the CSUCP is to allocate proposed housing, schools and any ancillary facilities wholly in Cell A. The housing allocation in Policy NN4 allowed for 880 dwellings, 320 fewer than currently proposed. The only 'very special circumstances' for Green Belt development that could exist in these circumstances would be if the council had failed to identify a five-year housing supply, which is clearly not relevant in this instance. The applicant acknowledges the 'uplift' of 320 houses would sit firmly outside the housing requirements of the plan period, which means any attempt to argue 'very special circumstances' is futile. If the correct allocation of approximately 880 dwellings is proposed, then the school playing fields would fit easily into Cell A, meaning no incursion into Cell B1 and no conflict with Green Belt policy. Policy NN4 reiterates the importance of the Green Belt boundary and states: 'Development at Newcastle Great Park will be required to provide: 7 viii. for the retention and development of a strong and identifiable boundary to the Green Belt'. We contend the council has failed to interpret CSUCP policies NN4 and CS19 and Paragraphs 79-90 of the NPPF correctly. We also contend there are no material considerations that outweigh the primacy of the development plan. In our email to Newcastle City Council, dated 14th December 2017, we outline decided case law which supports our view that the council's approach to NPPF Green Belt policy is seriously flawed. This letter is attached for reference. We do not know whether Newcastle City Council will attempt to argue very special circumstances in an addendum to the published committee report, due to the unlawfulness of its current assessment, although we anticipate this may well be the case. We also anticipate the council may attempt to justify the substantial harm to Green Belt, by referring to Paragraph 81, which states that local planning authorities should plan positively to enhance the beneficial use of Green Belts. This proposal clearly conflicts with all the relevant criteria listed, so cannot be given any weight in an attempt to demonstrate that the proposal would be not inappropriate in the Green Belt. Indeed, reference to this paragraph strengthens our concerns regarding the harmful impact of the proposal on openness, biodiversity, public access, parkland, landscape and visual amenity. 2. UNLAWFUL DEVELOPMENT OF CELL B1 - SUBSTANTIAL HARM TO BIODIVERSITY BY REMOVAL OF EXISTING AND POTENTIAL VALUE OF COMPENSATORY PLANTING RELATING TO CELL B APPROVALS Any decision to approve development of playing fields on Cell B1 would be unlawful, due to the substantial conflict with the approved use of the site as ecological compensation for Cell B development, constructed some 15 years ago. We would highlight planning consent ‪1999/1300/49/DCC – the extant approval for landscaping works for Cell B1. We refer particularly to plans referenced 5002CellB/L(99)001 revC and 5002CellB\L(93wp)001revB, which show substantial planting of scrub, hedgerow, grassland and woodland and other ecological measures across the entirety of Cell B1. Unimplemented landscaping includes swathes of woodland and scrub approved for the northern half of the site. The 'Parameters Plan' and updated ecological assessment submitted as amendments to the application demonstrate serious inconsistencies. The plan shows the vast majority of the Cell B1 site as fenced, short-mown amenity grassland, with a narrow margin of woodland at the boundaries of the site. In contrast, the proposed areas for replanting, as set out in the applicant's updated ecological assessment and in the master plan document, show wider areas of new and retained woodland, albeit of limited value compared to the extant approval. It is unclear how the existing strategic route running through the site will be affected, as it is shown on the parameters plan but would appear to be located within the proposed fenced area of the school playing fields. All development subject to Policy NN4 of the Core Strategy has to respond to – and align with – the relevant extant consents for the wider NGP, which in this case is planning approval ‪1999/1300/49/DCC. However, the comprehensive landscape approval for Cell B1 has only been partially implemented. The consequent impact of this failure to implement the approval, not only by the applicant, but by Newcastle City Council in failing to enforce the trigger in the planning consent and in the Section 106 for its completion, is substantial harm to nature conservation. The harm caused to the natural environment by the major developments of Sage and Park and Ride uses has never been properly mitigated by the compensatory measures as approved in the extant consent, thus these developments themselves are unlawful, because triggers for implementation in conditions and in the Section 106 legal agreement have not been met. All tables in the ecological assessment showing 'losses', 'gains' and areas to be 'retained' are not fit for purpose. The true value of Cell B1 has never come to fruition, and the impact of the proposal has to be assessed against what should have been implemented, not the much reduced, partial landscaping currently implemented. Moreover, all the ecological surveys showing numbers of birds and other species present are also wholly unreliable, because numbers and range of species would have been much greater if the planting scheme had been implemented in full. For example, the extant scheme includes butterfly mounds intended as habitat for Dingy Skipper, a species in decline, which has been completely overlooked in the ecological assessment for Cell B1. The council has not taken into account the substantial harm of the loss of compensatory planting for biodiversity, both existing and unlawfully unimplemented, for Cell B, otherwise a subsequent decision to grant planning permission would be unlawful, and liable to successful litigation, in the same way as the Green Belt interpretation outlined above. The council would be acting unlawfully if it were to rely on the ecological assessments of the applicant. These assessments can be given no weight in determining the application, because they do not take account of the ecological value of habitats that should have been implemented on Cell B1 some fifteen years ago, and therefore serve to downgrade the importance of the site for wildlife. 3. UNLAWFUL PLANNING PROCEDURE - ADDITION OF NEW PROPOSALS TO AN EXISTING APPLICATION A current application can only be amended if the amendment relates to a development listed in the original application description. The council has incorrectly consulted on the basis of a number of new development proposals, and has acted unlawfully in this regard. The correct procedure would be to withdraw the application and submit a fresh application. In addition to the clear errors relating to the fencing and pavilion, the 'Parameters Plan - Green Infrastructure' submitted on 19th October 2017, shows vehicular access running to the north of the roundabout, adjacent to Sage. This proposed road and access point to Cell B1 is outwith the application boundary and not included in the amended application description. The access road would run adjacent to the Letch Plantation to the east. The impact on this important habitat should be fully assessed as part of the application, but it is not within the red line boundary of the application and therefore invalidates the planning procedures associated with this application. 4. UNLAWFUL INTERPRETATION OF PARAGRAPH 74 OF THE NPPF RELATING TO OPEN SPACE DEVELOPMENT Our email of 14th December 2017 sets out reasons why the council has misinterpreted Paragraph 74 of the NPPF and the extant development plan policy for open space: saved UDP policy OS1.5. Such misinterpretation of national and local policy has implications for future interpretation of relevant policy and could set a dangerous precedent. We would therefore ask for open space considerations to be taken into account in your decision as to whether to call in the application. Thank you for your consideration.