October 2017 Stannington Parish Council - Northumberland · Stannington Parish Council took the decision to produce a Neighbourhood Plan for the ... • A Coffee Morning presentation

CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017

October2017

1

CONSULTATIONSTATEMENTFORSTANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN

2017–2032SUBMISSIONVERSON(OCTOBER2017)

October2017

StanningtonParishCouncil


October2017

2

Contents:

1.0 Introduction

2.0 StanningtonParishNeighbourhoodPlan–Background

3.0 ConsultationandEngagement–Timeline

4.0 ChangestothePlan

5.0 Pre-submissionConsultation

6.0 Conclusions

AppendixA: ListofdocumentsinsupportofConsultationStatementavailableonwebsite

AppendixB: StatutoryBodiesandlocalorganisationsconsulted

AppendixC: ScheduleofResponsestoPre-submissionconsultation

AppendixD: ResponsestoVisionandObjectivesConsultation

AppendixE: VisionandObjectivequestionnaire


October2017

3

1.0 Introduction

This Consultation Statement has been prepared to fulfill legal obligations set out in theNeighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 and subsequent amendments. TheseRegulationsrequirethatwhenaqualifyingbody(inthiscase,StanningtonParishCouncil)submitaneighbourhood development plan to the local planning authority, they must also provide aConsultationStatement.Regulation15(2)describeswhat is required inaConsultationStatement.ThisstatesthataConsultationStatementmust:

• contain details of the persons and bodies who were consulted about the proposed

neighbourhooddevelopmentplan;�

• explainhowtheywereconsulted;�

• summarisethemainissuesandconcernsraisedbythepersonsconsulted;�and�

• describe how those issues and concerns have been considered and, where relevant,

addressedintheproposedneighbourhooddevelopmentplan.�

ThisConsultationStatementsetsout:

• thebackgroundtopreparationofaneighbourhooddevelopmentplanforStannington;�

• Atimelineofthepublicity,engagementandconsultationthathashelpedtoshapeandinform

preparationofthePlan;�

• DetailsofthoseconsultedaboutthePlanatthevariousstagesofplanpreparationandtheextenttowhicheffortsweremadetoensurethePlanwaspreparedwithsupportandinput

fromthelocalcommunity;and�

• AdescriptionofthechangesmadetopoliciesasthePlanemergedinresponsetothepre-submission(Regulation14)consultation.ThesedetailsspecificallycanbefoundinAppendixB.

• Examples of documents used for consultation, and the relevant analyses of thoseconsultations

The Statement concludes that the process and techniques involved in seeking�communityengagementandtheoutcomesachievedthroughpreparingtheSubmissionDraftPlanwereextensiveandappropriatetothepurposeofthePlan.TheextentofengagementisconsideredbytheParishCouncil to at leastmeet the obligations set out in the Regulations. The Consultation StatementsupportsanddescribestheprocessofplanmakingasenvisagedthroughtheLocalismAct2011andtheassociatedRegulationsandsetsouthowithasbeenappliedinStanningtonParish.Themethodsusedandoutcomesachievedfromengagementhaveresultedinthesubmissionofaplanthat,intheopinion of the Parish Council, bestmeets community expectations expressed during the variousstagesofplanpreparation.


October2017

4

2.0 StanningtonParishNeighbourhoodPlan–Background

StanningtonParishCounciltookthedecisiontoproduceaNeighbourhoodPlanfortheareain2013.The Neighbourhood area was designated on 18th October 2013, and work commenced on theproductionofaNeighbourhoodPlan.

ASteeringGroupwasestablished,which comprisesamixofParishandCountyCouncillors, localresidents,businessrepresentativesandlocallandowners.ATermsofReferenceforthegroupwasagreedinJanuary2014andisontheNeighbourhoodPlanwebsite.

TheSteeringGrouphavebeenresponsibleinthemostpartforthepreparationoftheneighbourhoodplan.

TherehavebeenregularreportsbacktotheParishCouncil,andapprovalsought fromtheParishCouncilatkeymilestonesthroughoutthePlanpreparation.Membershiphaschangedlittleoverthe4yearssincetheSteeringGroupwasestablished.

3.0 ConsultationandEngagementTimeline

The Parish Council have consistently consulted all local businesses, community and voluntaryorganisationsintheParish,aswellasresidentsandlandownersduringtheplanproduction.Inmanycases,duetothesizeandruralnatureoftheParish, thesamepeoplemayberesidents/businessowners/voluntarygroupmembers.

Itwouldnotbe appropriate tomake thedatabaseof residents consulted available to thepublicthroughpublicationofthisConsultationStatementduetodataprotectionobligations.However,inaccordancewiththerequirementsoftheRegulations,detailsofpublicityundertakenabouttheplanare described in this Statement and details of all consultation bodies consulted during planpreparationareidentifiedinAppendixAofthisStatement.

ThetimelineofeventsinthepreparationoftheStanningtonNeighbourhoodPlanareoutlinedbelow.Therehavebeen4stagesofconsultation,includingthestatutoryPre-SubmissionConsultationstage.Therehavebeenextraconsultationswithlocalbusinesses,landowners,andyoungerpeopleintheparishaspartof,andalongsidetheseconsultations.Thewholeprocesshastakenjustover3yearsfromstarttoDraftPlanstage,andthetimelinebelowcoverseachstageofconsultation:

• FirstStageofConsultation–(March2014)InitialDrop-insession,questionnaireaboutwhatisgood/badaboutthearea,andspecificthemes

• Ongoingconsultationwithlocalschool,landowners,businessconsultationandlocaldisplaysatvillageshowsandthechurch

• SecondStageofConsultation–November2014: Distributionof leafletandquestionnaire,specific to Stannington Neighbourhood Plan, based on initial responses to March 2014consultation

• Thirdstageofconsultation–Vision,ObjectivesandPolicyAreas. ConsultationondetailedTopicPapersforeachthemetoformthebasisforchaptersofthePlan(September2015)


October2017

5

• FourthStageofConsultation:20thAprilto2ndJune2017–StanningtonParishNeighbourhoodPlan-PreSubmissionDraftConsultation[Regulation14Stage]

FirstStageofConsultation:(March2014)InitialDrop-insession, questionnaire aboutwhat is good/bad aboutthearea,andspecificthemes

Figure1:Examplesofconsultationmaterial

AsignificantamountofeffortwasputintotheearlystagesofconsultationonthisPlan:

• A‘PlanningTree’eventwasalsoheldinthelocalchurch,andstallsanddisplayswereheldatthevillagefete,aswellasworkinthelocalprimaryschooltoinvolvechildren.

• PresentationsweremadetotheStationRoadResidentsAssociation(12thFeb2014)

• ACoffeeMorningpresentationwasheld(5thMarch2014)

• Leafletsweredelivered(seeabove)toeveryresidentandbusinessintheParishon8thMarch2014.


October2017

6

• AYouthConferencewasalsoheldon13thofMarch,witha‘planningdragon’wherechildrencouldputtheirwishesonpost-its.

• Thisculminatedinthefinaldrop-ineventon20thMarch2014.A‘ConsultationPack’wasputtogether,whichaskedthecommunitywhatthe‘keyissues’were,inrelationtoanumberoftopics. Thequestionswerekeptdeliberately ‘open’ inorderto initiateaswidearangeofresponsesaspossible.Wordlediagramswereusedtoprovidevisualinterpretationofsomeofthequestionsasked.

• Mapswereprovided,andgreenandredstickerswerealsogiventoconsultees,sotheycouldsaywheretheyfeltdevelopmentwasandwasn’tappropriate.

SecondStageofConsultation–November2014:Distributionofleafletandquestionnaire,specifictoStanningtonNeighbourhoodPlan

The results of the initial consultation were distilled and a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses,OpportunitiesandStrengths)analysiswasundertaken,usingalltheinitialconsultationresponses.Afurther,moredetailedquestionnairewasthenproduced,whichaskedmorespecificquestionsaboutsomeoftheissuesthathadbeenraisedatthebeginningoftheprocess.

All information from the completed questionnaires was analysed, and a report produced whichsuggested an initial ‘vision’ and a set of ‘objectives’ for the Plan. This analysis included somesuggestedpolicyideas,aswellasalistofCommunityActionswhichneededtobemanagedseparately(i.e.non-planningissues).

A£50voucherwasofferedtopeoplewhocompletedtheleaflet.

Afurtherstageofconsultationwasthenundertakenonthevision/objectivesandpolicyareasforthePlan.

Thirdstageofconsultation–Vision,ObjectivesandPolicyAreas(September2015)

Figure2:VisionandObjectivesconsultationeventinVillageHall


October2017

7

Aconsultationleaflet(APPENDIXE)wassenttoeveryhouseholdintheParish,askingforfeedbackonaproposedvision,asetofobjectives,andproposedpolicyareasforthePlan.AnumberofTopicPaperswereproducedtoprovidebackgroundevidenceandreasonsfortheproposedobjectivesandpolicyareas.TheseTopicPaperscoveredanumberofissues:Housing,Transport,LocalEconomy,Sustainable Settlements, Community Assets, Natural Environment and Design Sites and GeneralDevelopmentPrinciples.Therewasahighresponseratetothisconsultation,andtheresultsprovidedthebasisforproceedingwithdraftinganinitialplan.ThefullresultsofthisconsultationarecontainedinAppendixB.

Anumberofchangesweremadefollowingthisconsultation:

• Policiesrelatedtohousingwereremoved,astherewassignificantoppositiontoprovidingmoremarkethousing,particularlyinStanningtonStation

• Thevisionandanumberofobjectivesweremoreclearlywordedtoreflectresponsesreceived

• Therewasstrongsupportforapolicyaboutre-locatingorimprovingtheschool,sothiswasadded.

• CommunityActionswereincorporated(mattersthatcouldnotbedealtwiththroughplanningpolicies)

• Someobjectivesthat‘overlapped’weremergedforclarity

FourthStageofConsultation:20thAprilto2ndJune2017–StanningtonParishNeighbourhoodPlan-PreSubmissionDraftConsultation[Regulation14Stage]

ThroughthedistributionoftheParishMagazine,everyresidentwasmadeawareofthisconsultationstage.Anopendaywasheldon20thApril,whichdisplayedthedraftplan.Statutoryconsulteeswerealsoconsulted,aswellaslocalgroupsandorganisations.

ThestatutoryconsultationperiodonthePre-SubmissionDraftStanningtonNeighbourhoodPlancommencedon20thApril2017andranforaperiodofsevenweeksendingon2ndJune2017.PublicityonthePlancomprisedthefollowingactions:

• Lettersand/oremailssenttoallconsultationbodiesandallotherpartiesidentifiedthroughthePlandatabasepriortocommencementoftheconsultationperiod,includingNorthumberlandCountyCouncil(afulllistoforganisationsandbodiesconsultediscontainedinAppendixB;�

• AScreeningOpinionastowhetheraStrategicEnvironmentalAssessmentwouldberequiredwassoughtfromNorthumberlandCountyCouncil.Anegativescreeningopinionwasreceived.

• PublicitywasgiventhroughouttheprocessviathelocalParishnewsletter,

• ThePlanandpublicitymaterialwaspostedonthewebsitealongwiththemainEvidenceBasedocumentsandallotherconsultationmaterial;

• AfullcopyofthePre-SubmissionDraftPlanwasmadeavailableattheVillageHall,theRidleyArmspub,St.Mary’sChurch,StanningtonFirstSchool,St.Mary’sInn,theMoorhouse


October2017

8

FarmShop,BlagdonFarmShopandtheWhitehouseFarmCafé.

• Aneveningdrop-inconsultationsessionwasheldduringtheeveningonthe20thofApril2017,andwaswellattended.

4.0 ResponsestoPre-SubmissionDraftPlan

StatutoryandotherConsultees’Responses

TherewereanumberofresponsesfromStatutoryConsultees(identifiedinthelistinthisdocument).Manyof themrelated tominorchangesoradditions topolicywordingandcriteria. A full listofchangesmadeiscontainedintheScheduleofChangesforStatutoryConsultees,andformsAppendixCof thisdocument. Therewereno significant changesmade to thePlanas a result of thepre-submissionconsultation.

StrategicEnvironmentalAssessmentandScreeningOpinion

AScreeningOpinionwasalsosoughtastowhetheraStrategicEnvironmentalAssessmentwouldberequired.ThiswassoughtfromNorthumberlandCountyCouncil,andtheconclusionwasthatnoSEAwouldberequired.Nofurtherchangeswereneeded,ascommentsmadebytheStatutoryBodiesconsultedaspartoftheSEAScreeninghadalreadybeentakenintoaccountinmainconsultation.TheScreeningOpiniononSEAisavailableissubmittedwiththeBasicConditionsStatement.

HabitatsRegulationsAssessmentScreeningOpinion

A Screening Opinion was also sought as to whether Habitats Regulations Assessment would berequired.This(negative)ScreeningOpinionisalsosubmittedwiththeBasicConditionsStatement.

5.0 ChangestothePlan

AnumberofchangesweremadetotheNeighbourhoodPlanasaresultoftheconsultationexercises.ItshouldbenotedthatwhilstthePlanwasinpreparation,NorthumberlandCountyCouncilwerealsointheprocessofpreparingtheirCoreStrategy.Thisprocessinvolvedpotentially‘insetting’StationRoadinproposedgreenbelt.ThisissuecausedsignificantconcerntoanumberofresidentsintheParish,andtherewas inmanycases,confusionabouttheroleof theNeighbourhoodPlan in thisprocess. This resulted in somenegative responseswhichwerenot inactual fact relevant to theNeighbourhoodPlan,astheNeighbourhoodPlanhasnojurisdictionovergreenbeltboundariesandinsets.

DuetoachangeinadministrationattheCountyCouncil,theCoreStrategydocument(whichhadbeen submitted itself for Examination in April 2017) was withdrawn. The references in theNeighbourhoodPlantotheemergingCoreStrategyhavesincebeenremoved.Commentsmadebyrespondentsinrelationtothegreenbeltthroughouttheprocess,havenotbeenignored,butithasnotbeenpossiblefortheNeighbourhoodPlantorespondtotheseissues.

All changes made following the pre-submission consultation can be seen on the Schedule ofResidentsResponsesandontheScheduleofResponsesfromStatutoryBodies.Someotherminor


October2017

9

changestowording,grammaticalerrorsorareaswhereitwasfeltcouldbefurtherclarifiedhavealsobeenmadebytheSteeringGroup.

6.0 Conclusions

TheSubmissionPlanistheoutcomeofthreeyearsofcontinuouscommunityengagementinvariousforms. It comprises a set of locally specific planning policies intended to guide developmentmanagement decisions on planning applications so that they better reflect the communities’expectationsconcerningcontrolsandsupportfornewdevelopmentintheParish.

TheParishCouncilbelievethattheSubmissionPlanisafairreflectionoftheviewsexpressedbythelocalcommunitythroughoutthevariousstagesofplanpreparation.

AlllegalobligationsregardingthepreparationofneighbourhoodplanshavebeenadheredtobytheParish Council. The Submission Plan is supported by a Basic Conditions Report and by thisConsultation Statement both of which adequately cover the requirements set out in theNeighbourhoodPlanningRegulations2012 [asamended].TheParishCouncilhasnohesitation inpresentingthePlanasapolicydocumentthathasthesupportofthemajorityofthelocalcommunitywhohavebeenengagedinitspreparation.

ThisConsultationStatementcompletestherangeoftasksundertakentodemonstratethatpublicity,consultation and engagement on the Plan has been meaningful, effective, proportionate andvaluable in shaping the Plan which will benefit communities across the Parish by promotingsustainabledevelopment.


October2017

10

APPENDICES:APPENDIXA–Listofdocumentsrelevanttoconsultation

ListofallrelevantreportsanddocumentspreparedtosupporttheStanningtonNeighbourhoodDevelopmentPlan.Allthesedocumentsareavailableonthewebsite:www.spnp.co.uk.

GovernanceArrangements

StanningtonParishNeighbourhoodDevelopmentPlanSteeringGroup,TermsofReference

ConsultationandEngagement

StanningtonNeighbourhoodDevelopmentPlan,ConsultationLeafletoninitiallaunch(March2014)

StanningtonNeighbourhoodDevelopmentPlan,SWOTanalysisconsultation

PlanningTreecomments(April2014)

StanningtonNDP–ConsultationresponsesfromLocalBusinesses(containedinLocalEconomyTopicPaper)

StanningtonNDP–ConsultationonVisionandObjectives(consultationdocument)

StanningtonNDP–ResponsestoconsultationonVisionandObjectives

StanningtonNDP-BackgroundTopicPapers(allincludedonwebsite)

StanningtonNeighbourhoodDevelopmentPlan,Pre-SubmissionDraftPlan(asconsultedoninApril2017)

StanningtonNeighbourhoodDevelopmentPlanPre-SubmissionDraftPlan:ResponsestoComments,asagreedbySteeringGroupmeetings(minutesonthewebsite)

NeighbourhoodAreaDesignations

ApplicationstodesignateaneighbourhoodareaforStanningtonmadetoNorthumberlandCountyCouncilandthedesignationdocuments.

HabitatsRegulationsAppropriateAssessmentandSEAScreeningOpinion

StrategicEnvironmentalAssessmentScreeningOpinionfromNorthumberlandCountyCouncil(February2017)

HabitatsRegulationsAppropriateAssessmentfromNorthumberlandCountyCouncil(October2017)

SubmissionPlanandrelatedReports

StanningtonNeighbourhoodDevelopmentPlan,SubmissionPlanforIndependentExamination,(October2017)

StanningtonNeighbourhoodPlan,BasicConditionsReport,(October2017)


October2017

11

StanningtonNeighbourhoodDevelopmentPlan,ConsultationStatementforSubmissionPlan,(October2017)


October2017

12

APPENDIXB:

Consultation bodies from Paragraph 1 of Schedule one of the Neighbourhood Planning (General)Regulations2012tobeconsultedinrelationtoStanningtonParishNeighbourhoodPlanPre-submissionDraft(Regulation14)Consultation(20thApril-2ndJune2017)

Consultation Body Organisation Contact Local Planning Authority

Northumberland County Council

David English [email protected] Mark Ketley (Head of Planning and Housing Services) Northumberland County Council, County Hall, Morpeth, Northumberland, NE61 2EF. Tel.: 01670623430 Email: [email protected]

Parish Council Stannington Parish Council

Clerk to the Parish Council, Mr D Hall [email protected]

The Coal Authority Planning and Local Authority Liaison, The Coal Authority, 200 Lichfield Lane, Berry Lane, Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, NG18 4RG. Email:[email protected]

Homes and Communities Agency

Homes and Communities Agency, St George's House, Kingsway, Team Valley, Gateshead, NE11 0NA. [email protected]

Natural England Consultation Service, Natural England, Hornbeam House, Electra Way, Crewe Business Park, Crewe, CW1 6GJ. Email: [email protected]

The Environment Agency

Planning Consultations, Environment Agency, Tyneside House, Skinnerburn Road, Newcastle Business Park, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4 7AR. Email: [email protected]

Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England

Historic England Ms Barbara Hooper (Regional Planner) English Heritage, 41-44 Sandgate, Newcatsle upon Tyne, NE1 3JF. Email: [email protected]

Network Rail Infrastructure Limited

Network Rail Infrastructure Limited, George Stephenson House, Toft Hill, York, Y01 6JT.

The Highways Agency

Asset Development Team - Yorkshire and North East, Highways Agency, Lateral, 8 City Walk, Leeds, LS11 9 AT. Email: [email protected]


October2017

13

Consultation Body Organisation Contact Relevant Primary Care Trust

NHS Northumberland Clinical Commissioning Group

Steph Edusei (Strategic Head of Corporate Affairs) NHS Northumberland Clinical Commissioning Group, County Hall, Morpeth, Northumberland, NE61 2 EF. Tel.: 01670335161 Email: [email protected]

Any person who owns or controls electronic communications apparatus situated in any part of the area of the local planning authority

Avonline Avonline, 42 Ashton Vale Road, Ashton Vale, Bristol, BS3 2AX. Tel.: 0117 953 1111 Email: [email protected]

British Telecommunications Plc.

British Telecommunications Plc., Openreach Newsites PP 4AB, 21-23 Carliol Square, Newcastle CTE, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 1BB.

Cybermoor Cybermoor, Town Hall, Front Street, Alston, CA9 3RF. Tel.: 01434 382808 Email: [email protected]

Mono Consultants Mono Consultants, 48 St. Vincent Street, Glasgow, Lanarkshire, G2 5TS.

Hutchinson 3G UK Limited

Hutchinson 3G UK Limited, Star House, 20 Grenfell Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire, SL6 1EH.

Virgin Media Limited Virgin Media Limited, St James Court, Great Park Road, Almondsbury Park, Bradley Stoke, Bristol, BS32 4QJ.

Wildcard Networks Wildcard Networks, Reliance House, Skinnerburn Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4 7AN.

Arqiva

[email protected]

Any person to whom the electronic communications code applies

Mono Consultants, 48 St. Vincent Street, Glasgow, Lanarkshire, G2 5TS. Email: [email protected]

Any person to whom a licence has been granted under section 6(1)(b) and (c) of the Electricity Act 1989.

Northern Powergrid Northern Powergrid, Records and Information, Manor House, Station Road, Penshaw, Houghton le Spring, County Durham, DH4 7LA.

National Grid National Grid, National Grid House, Warwick, Warwickshire, CV34 6DA.

Electricity North West

Electricity North West Limited, Estates and Wayleaves, Frederick Road, Salford, Manchester M6 6QH

Any a person to whom a licence has been granted under section 7(2) of the Gas Act 1986.

Northern Gas Networks

Northern Gas Networks, 1100 Century Way, Thorp Business Park, Colton, Leeds, LS15 8TU.

Sewerage undertaker

Northumbrian Water Limited

New Development Team (Planning), Northumbrian Water Limited, Leat House, Pattinson Road, Washington, Tyne and Wear, NE38 8LB.

United Utilities United Utilities Water, Developer Services and Planning, Grasmere House Lingley Green Avenue, Lingley Mere Business Park, Great Sankey, Warrington, Cheshire, WA5 3LP


October2017

14

Consultation Body Organisation Contact Water undertaker Northumbrian Water

Limited New Development Team (Planning), Northumbrian Water Limited, Leat House, Pattinson Road, Washington, Tyne and Wear, NE38 8LB

United Utilities United Utilities Water, Developer Services and Planning, Grasmere House Lingley Green Avenue, Lingley Mere Business Park, Great Sankey, Warrington, Cheshire, WA5 3LP

The Theatres Trust

Ross Anthony (Planning and Heritage Adviser) The Theatres Trust, 22 Charing Cross Road, London WC2H 0QL. Tel.:02078368591 Email: [email protected]

Adjoining Planning Authorities

Newcastle City Council

Head of Planning Tom Warburton Newcastle City Council Civic Centre Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8QH [email protected]

Adjoining Parishes Ponteland Town Council

Email:[email protected]

Dinnington [email protected]

Whalton [email protected]

Cramlington [email protected]

Mitford [email protected]

Hepscott [email protected]

West Bedlington [email protected]

Bodieswhichrepresenttheinterestsofdifferentreligiousgroupsintheneighbourhoodarea

St Marys Church Catherine Pickford (vicar) The Vicarage Stannington Northumberland NE61 6HL (01670) 785606 Email: [email protected] St Mary the Virgin : Church Road, Stannington, Northumberland, NE61 6HW

Stannington Mothers’ Union

Liz FergusonEmail:[email protected]

Voluntarybodiessomeorallof

Stannington PTA Stannington First School Church Road


October2017

15

Consultation Body Organisation Contact whoseactivitiesbenefitalloranypartoftheneighbourhoodarea;

Stannington Morpeth NE61 6HJ Tel : 01670 78927

Blagdon Cricket Club

Blagdon Estate Seaton Burn Northumberland NE13 6DU 07530066255 Email: [email protected]

Stannington Ridley Scouts

Contact Andrew Teasdale

Northumberland County Office

E:[email protected]

Stannington History

Group

Sandra Dickinson Email: [email protected]

WW1 Group Mark Legard Email: [email protected]

Stannington Womens’ Institute

Secretary Sue Wilson Email:[email protected]

Stannington Village Hall

Stannington Village Hall Chair; Tom Worswick Secretary; Doreen Worswick Email: [email protected]

Stannington Church and Village News

Issy Legard Email; [email protected]

Stannington Bowling Club

c/o Stannington Village Hall Main Street, Stannington, Morpeth NE61 6EL

Stannington Coffee

Club Liz FergusonEmail:[email protected]

Stannington Art Group

Peter Cryer Email; [email protected]

Stannington Tree Tots

c/o Stannington First School Church Road Stannington Morpeth NE61 6HJ Tel : 01670 78927


October2017

16

Consultation Body Organisation Contact Open Hands Liz Ferguson

Email:[email protected] Badminton Group c/o Stannington Village Hall

Main Street, Stannington, Morpeth NE61 6EL

St Marys Park

Residents Group Nick Wilson Email: [email protected]

Netherton Park Residents Group

Mr KH Khan North Bungalow Netherton Park Stannington Northumberland NE61 6EG

Stannington Station Residents Association

Karen Carins Email: [email protected]


October2017

17

APPENDIXC:PRE-SUBMISSIONCONSULTATIONRESPONSESANDCHANGESTOPLAN

No. Consultee Pageor

Policy

Comment Response ChangesProposed

1 NCC Page8 Wesuggestchangestothetext,inthetwoparagraphs

underneaththeGreenBeltheading,toreflectthe

correctpositionandterminologyoftheGreenBelt

area.

ThegeneralextentoftheGreenBeltextension

boundaryaroundMorpethissetoutunder

NorthumberlandCountyCouncil'sStructurePlanSaved

PolicyS5.ThenorthernpartofthePlanareaisinthe

generalextentoftheproposedthisGreenBelt

extensionaroundMorpeth.Thesouthernportionisin

thelongstandingTyneandWearGreenBelt.”

TheemergingNorthumberlandLocalPlanCore

Strategywilldefinethedetailedboundariesforthe

proposedGreenBeltextensionaroundMorpeth.Work

onthepolicyapproachforsettlementswithinthe

generalextentoftheGreenBeltisongoing.This

includeshasconsideredwhetherparticular

settlementsshouldbeinsetwithin,theGreenBeltor

‘washedover’bytheGreenBeltdesignation.Currently

IntheversionoftheCoreStrategysubmittedtothe

SecretaryofState,StanningtonVillageis'inset',based

ontheexistingCastleMorpethLocalPlansettlement

boundary.andtThereareproposalstolikewise'inset'

Acceptsuggested

changes,withthe

exceptionofthose

changessuggestedin

relationtotheemerging

CoreStrategywhichhas

sincebeenwithdrawn.

ThegeneralextentoftheGreenBelt

extensionboundaryaroundMorpethisset

outunderNorthumberlandCountyCouncil's

StructurePlanSavedPolicyS5.Thenorthern

partofthePlanareaisinthegeneralextent

oftheproposedthisGreenBeltextension

aroundMorpeth.Thesouthernportionisin

thelongstandingTyneandWearGreenBelt.”


October2017

18


Policy


StanningtonStation,which,atpresent,hasno

settlementboundarydefinedintheCastleMorpeth

LocalPlan.Theseproposalsarenotyetconfirmed

2 NCC Page9 Thoughtheplancorrectlystatesthattheplanareais

easilyaccessiblefromtheA1,thereisnomentionof

theDovecoteLanenorthboundaccessoftheA1which

hasbeenaconcernforanumberofyearsandwhich

NCChighlightedinourreplytotheHighwaysEngland

RouteStrategyconsultation.

Noted Nochange–thismatterisbeyondthecontrol

oftheNP.

3 NCC Page9 Wesuggestchangestothetext,intheparagraph

underneaththeHeritage/Environmentheading,to

reflectthecorrectpositionandterminologyattached

totheproposedConservationArea

Acceptsuggested

changes

Thereareanumberoflistedbuildingsand

placesofhistoricinterestwithinthePlanarea.

StanningtonVillagehasthehighest

concentrationoflistedbuildingsandhasa

proposedConservationAreawasproposedin

theCastleMorpethLocalPlaninapolicythat

continuestobe‘saved’.Therearetwo

parklands(partsofBlagdonHallEstate,and

St.Mary'sPark)listedontheRegisterofParks

andGardensofSpecialHistoricInterest.


October2017

19


Policy


4 NCC Page9 Wesuggestexpandingthefirstsentence(on

landscape)toreferspecificallyto‘CoalfieldFarmland’

and‘LowlandRollingFarmland’whicharethetwoLCTs

(fromtheNorthumberlandLCA)thatfallwithintheNP

area.Wesuggestthesecondsentenceshouldbe

rephrasedinthatprotectedspeciescanpervadeareas

acrosstheCountythatarenotnecessarilythesubject

ofdesignations.Itislikely,forexample,thatprotected

specieswillvisitand/orinhabitthesignificantareaof

ancientwoodlandthatliesalongtheRiverBlythValley,

whichencroachesintotheNParea

Acceptsuggested

changes

Changesaccepted–referenceadded

5 NCC Page11,

Part3,

Objective1,

Policy1

Wesuggestchangingthetextintheobjectivetomake

itmoreclearwhattheNPpolicywillseektodotofulfill

theobjectiveandwhataCommunityActionProposal

willdotofulfilltheobjectivetoavoidanyconfusion

betweentheseparatepowersmentioned.

Theproposedchanges

wouldresultinachange

intheemphasisofthe

policyandtheobjective,

toenhancingexisting

communityfacilities

whichisnotcurrently

whateitherpolicy

specificallyseekstodo.

Somechangeshavebeenmadetoclarifythe

differencebetweenregisteredAssetsof

CommunityValue,andcommunityfacilities.

ClarityonwhatistobedoneviaCommunity

Actionsalsoadded.


October2017

20


Policy


6 NCC Policy2 It’sworthnotingthatObjective1supportingtext

referstopoliciessupportingthecreationofnew

communityfacilities,‘...andinparticularanewshop,cafeandpharmacyinStanningtonVillage(Policy2)’butthepolicyitselfstates.‘Theprovisionofanew,shop,cafe,pharmacyandgreenspace/playareasforchildrenwillbestronglysupportedinanyofthedefinedsettlements.’

Wouldpolicy2besupportingtheprovisionofanew

shopinanyofthedefinedsettlementsorStannington

Village?

Wehavesuggestedchangestothetheobjectiveand

supportingtexttoreflectthetwoseparatepowersofa

NeighbourhoodPlanandtheAssetsofCommunity

Valueprocess.Thiscouldavoidanyconfusionbetween

thetwopowersandwouldleadtoaplanningpolicy

thatseekstoenhanceandprotectcommunityfacilities

thathavebeenidentifiedthroughevidencecollected

inthepreparationoftheNeighbourhoodPlananda

furtherCommunityActionproposaltolistcertain

communityfacilitiesasACVs.Thiswouldresultintwo

separateformsofprotectionusingtwoseparate

powers.

TheCountyCouncilwouldwelcomefurtherdiscussions

withtheParishCouncilandworkinggrouptodiscuss

listingAssetsofCommunityValueandprotectingand

enhancingcommunityfacilitiesinaNeighbourhood

Policy2doesintendto

supporttheprovisionof

anewshopinanyofthe

definedsettlements

whereitcomplieswith

theDevelopmentPlan,

includingGreenBelt

policy.Thisisreferredto

inthesupportingtext.

Somechangeshave

beenmadetoclarifyACV

andtheCommunity

Actionsrelatedtoit.

ParishCouncilwelcomes

furtherdiscussionalso.

Nochangestotheobjective,butchanges

madetothetexttoavoidconfusionbetween

ACVsunderRighttoBid,andCommunity

Facilitiesasdefinedinthepolicy.Further

referencetoGreenBelthavebeenaddedto

thebodyofthepolicyasadvised.


October2017

21


Policy


PlanningPolicy.Thiswillbringclarityacrossthetwo

separatepowersandensureitisviabletodosoforall

partiesinvolved.

ThesupportingtextsuggeststhattheSchoolmaybea

candidateforregistrationasanACV.Thiswould

appeartopresentsomecontradictionwiththe

intentionsofPolicy3whichsupportstherelocationof

theschool.TheCountyCouncilobjectstotheintention

ofseekingtoprotecttheschoolasanACVwhichmay

adverselyimpactthepropermanagementand

planningoffutureschoolprovisionintheParish.

TheACVprocessis

outwiththe

NeighbourhoodPlanning

process.TheParish

Councilwillconsulton

theregistrationofACVs,

andthereisno

commitmentintheNP

toregisteringtheschool,

oranyoftheotherACVs,

merelyanintentionto

conductaconsultation

exercise.

ReferencetospecificACVshavebeen

removed.TheregistrationofACVswillbea

separateprocess,andanyassumptionsabout

whichACVsmayberegisteredhavebeen

removedfromthetext.

7 NCC Page12 Weareparticularlyencouragedbypolicies7and8

whichbothlooktoprotectpedestriansandcyclistsby

improvingsafetyandinfrastructurewherepossible

withclearsynergieswithNCCpolicies.

Wesuggestthattheobjectivedetails,specifically,what

ismeantby'reducingthedetrimentaleffectthattraffichasonresidentsinbusinessesinthearea.'Performancebasedonthepresentwordingwouldbe

challengingtoevaluate

Wealsosuggestthatreferenceto‘non-trafficnetworksandpublictransportprovision’isclarifiedinmore

Supportnoted.

Textofobjectivereads

‘and’insteadof‘in’.

Grammaticalerror.

Somechangesmadetoclarify.


October2017

22


Policy


detail.Initscurrentformitraisesthefollowing

questions.

-Doesthereference,forexample,

supportpedestrians,cyclistsandpublic

transportusersrespectively?�

-Isthereferencetothe'localnetwork'

referringtothelocalhighwaynetwork?�

Agreeobjectivecouldbe

clarifiedtorefertoroad

network.

Changeobjective4toadd‘highway’in

between‘local’and‘networks’

8 NCC Page13 Wesuggestedchangestothetexttoreflectthefact

thatthedesignationoftheproposedConservation

AreawouldbeinformedbytheAppraisal:

Agreed Acommunityactionisproposedtoworkwith

NorthumberlandCountyCounciltodesignate

aConservationAreainStanningtonVillage

andtoproducewhichwouldbeinformedbya

ConservationAreaCharacterAppraisal.

9 NCC Planning

Policies

GreenBelt

Thistextboxcouldbenefitfrombeingre-writtento

betterreflecttherelationshipbetweenthepoliciesin

theplan,thatsupportdevelopmentintheGreenBelt

andguidanceintheNPPFondevelopmentinthe

GreenBelt.Whilethecouncilacceptsthatsome

developmentisacceptableintheGreenBeltunder

certaincircumstancese.g.Infilldevelopmentinvillages

(theNeighbourhoodPlanhasidentifiedsettlements

whichmaybeclassedas‘villages’forthepurposesof

nationalGreenBeltpolicyandsolimitedinfillingmay

occur)andtheremaybeothercircumstanceswhere

inappropriatedevelopmentmaybejustifiedbyspecific

‘veryspecialcircumstances’,wesuggestthefollowing

asapossiblerewordingoftheBoxtexttobetterreflect

Agreed–suggestions

relatedto

TextinPoliciesboxhasbeenchangedpartly

asadvised.WithdrawalofCoreStrategy

meanssomeofthesuggestedchangeshave

notbeincorporated.


October2017

23


Policy


theimplicationsofdevelopmentintheGreenBelt,

(alsotoreflectthecurrentstatusoftheGreenBelt

designation):Suggestedwordingsent.

10 NCC p.25 Wesuggestchangestothestructureofthispolicyto

makeitclearer.Theregisteringofcommunityfacilities

asAssetsofCommunityValue(ACV)wouldbe

undertakenasaCommunityActionProposal.Keeping

referencetothetwopowersseparatemaymake

thingsclearer.Theplanningpolicywillhavetobeclear

soastonotbeconfusedwiththeACVprocess.

Thefollowing,suggested,policyapproachwould

assumethatevidencecollectedduringplan

preparationhasidentifiedfacilitieswhichthe

communityseeasimportantandshouldbeprotected

and/orenhanced.Sufficientsupportingevidence

wouldneedtobeprovided,preferablyinasupporting

backgroundpaper.

Wealsosuggestthispolicywouldbenefitfromcareful

thoughtastherewillbeimplicationsforthe

communityfacilitiesthattheplanwouldliketosee

protectedthroughplanningpolicyandimplicationsfor

communityfacilitiesthattheParishCouncilmayseek

tobelistedasanACV.

Thereareexamplesofneighbourhoodplansthathave

optedfor3differentkindsofpoliciesthatalldoslightly

differentthingstosatisfytheprovision,protectionand

ThePolicyrefersto

thoseCommunityAssets

thatareregistered.

Wherenoneare

registered,thenthe

policywouldnotapply.

Thereisaseparate

communityactionto

specificallyregister

assets.

ItwasagreedatSteering

Groupmeetings,and

throughtheconsultation

process,thattheprocess

ofregisteringACVs

wouldbedone

separately.Thepolicy

(Policy1)merely

providesthevehicleto

giveanadditionallevel

ofprotectiontoACVs

Somechangesmadetoclarifythedifference

betweenACVsandcommunityfacilities.

CommunityActionhasbeenre-locatedtoPart

6ofthePlan.

Backgroundpapersonthesettlements

includesreferencetoallthevalued

communityfacilitiesineachsettlement.


October2017

24


Policy


enhancementofcommunityfacilitiesthrougha

planningpolicy:

Supportingtheimprovementofexistingcommunity

facilitiesintheplanarea,(subjecttoGreenBelt

limitationsintheStanningtonplanarea.)�

Safeguardingthecommunitybenefitsassociatedwith

specific,existing,communityfacilitiese.g.The

Pub/VillageHall�

Welcomingspecific,new,communityfacilitiessuchas

ashop,postofficeandpharmacy,forexample(subject

toGreenBeltlimitationsintheStanningtonplanarea.)

�

Withalittlefurtherevidencegatheringandstructuring

ofeachpolicywethinkarobustsetofpoliciescouldbe

achievedinthissectionthataremorespecificto

differentcommunityfacilitiesandmorespecifictothe

powersinaNeighbourhoodPlan.

ThesupportingtextsuggeststhattheSchoolmaybea

candidateforregistrationasanACV.Thiswould

appeartopresentsomecontradictionwiththe

intentionsofPolicy3whichsupportstherelocationof

theschool.TheCountyCouncilobjectstotheintention

ofseekingtoprotecttheschoolasanACVwhichmay

adverselyimpactthepropermanagementand

planningoffutureschoolprovisionintheParish.

if/whentheyare

registered.

Thereissignificant

evidenceinthe

consultationresponses

astowhatfacilitiesand

servicesarevaluedby

thecommunity,andthis

isreflectedinthePlan

Noted.However,the

planspecificallyseeksto

‘leave’theregisteringof

ACVstoanothertime.

Thereisaseparate

policywhichseeksto

supporttheprovisionof

Referencetoregistrationofspecificassets,

includingtheschool,havebeenremoved.


October2017

25


Policy


newcommunity

facilities.

Thereisapolicyto

supporttheextensionor

re-locationoftheschool,

shoulditbeneeded.

ThePlandoesnot

committoregistering

theschoolasanACV.It

isnotclearhowthis

would,inanyevent,

impactonthe

managementofthe

school,ortheplanning

offutureschool

provision.

11 NCC p.14policy

explanation

Part4oftheNeighbourhoodPlandealswithPlanning

Policies.Thefirstparagraphhighlightsacommunity

actionproposaltolistassetsofcommunityvalue.For

clarityandtomaketheplaneasiertoreaditwouldbe

bettertodiscusscommunityactionproposalsintheir

ownseparatesection.Thepoliciessectionoftheplan

wouldbebetterjustdealingwithpoliciesandtheir

justifications.Howeverwhereitissensibletomake

referencetoacommunityactionproposalforclarityor

Itisnotagreedthat

havingcommunity

actionsembeddedinthe

planwouldresultinit

failingtheBasic

Conditions.However,it

isgoodpracticeto

separatethemout.The

CommunityActionsare

RemoveCommunityActionboxesfrommain

textwherevertheyappear.


October2017

26


Policy


furtherinformationthenitwouldseemrighttodoso

butthemajorityofsupportingtextonnon-planning

matterswouldbebetterincludedinpart6oftheplan.

ThisisamatterwherethePlanmayfailtomeetthe

basicconditionsinthatPlanningPracticeGuidance

recommendsthatcommunityactionsaresetoutina

separateannextotheplan.TheCountyCouncilwould

thereforeobjecttothecurrentpresentationof

communityactionsandwouldrecommend

modificationtothePlanassuggested.

alreadyreferredto

separatelyinPart6.

12 NCC Page14,

Policy2

Newand

Extended

Community

Facilities

SeecommentsonPolicy1.

FurthercommentsonPolicy2.

Wesuggestchangestothetexttoclarifywhetherthe

provisionofanewshop,cafe,pharmacyandgreen

space/playareaforchildrenwillbestronglysupported

in‘anyofthedefinedsettlements’orin‘StanningtonVillage’asitisreferredtointheObjective1,supportingtext,onpage11.

Itisnotedthatsomeofthedefinedsettlements

referredtoarewashedoverbyGreenBelt.Therefore,

newand/orextendedcommunityfacilitiesthatgo

beyondthescaleandorusesacceptableintheGreen

Beltwillbejudgedagainsttheneedtodemonstrate

‘veryspecialcircumstances’.Thispolicycouldbemade

Furtherclarificationis

proposedtothe

supportingtext.

Followingmeeting,agreedchangeshavebeen

madetobetterreflectgreenbeltpolicywithin

thePlan.


October2017

27


Policy


morecompliantwiththeNPPFbyaddingtotheend

thefollowing:

AnysuchproposalswhichcouldadverselyaffecttheGreenBelt,andthepurposeforitsdesignation,byvirtueofscale,impact,locationoruse,willneedtobejustifiedeitherasbeingnotinappropriatedevelopmentorthroughdemonstrationofveryspecialcircumstancesthatcouldjustifysupportfortheproposals.

Ascurrentlyworded,wewouldhaveconcernsthatthe

policyfailstomeetthebasicconditionsinthatitdoes

nothaveregardtonationalpolicyontheGreenBelt

setoutintheNPPF.

13 NCC p.14Policy

explanation

Thiscouldbeimprovedbymakingitclearhowthis

policyexplanationalignswiththesupportingtextin

Objective1tomakeclearwhetheritisallthedefined

settlementsthatwouldsupportnewcommunity

facilitiesorjustStanningtonVillage.

Agreed Changesmadetoclarify.

14 NCC p.14Policy

explanation

Wesuggestchangestothetext,inthesecond

paragraph,toreflectthecorrectpositionand

terminologyoftheGreenBeltinthisarea.[Changes

suggestedinrelationtoemergingCoreStrategy]

NochangeduetoCore

Strategybeing

withdrawn


October2017

28


Policy


15 NCC Page15,

Policy3:

Wesuggestchangestothetext,inthesecond

paragraph,toreflectthecorrectpositionand

terminologyoftheGreenBeltinthisarea.

Thispolicycouldbemademorecompliantwiththe

NPPFbyaddingtotheendthefollowing:

AnysuchproposalswhichcouldadverselyaffecttheGreenBelt,andthepurposeforitsdesignation,byvirtueofscale,impact,locationoruse,willneedtobejustifiedeitherasbeingnotinappropriatedevelopmentorthroughdemonstrationofveryspecialcircumstancesthatcouldjustifysupportfortheproposals.

Policy3statesthatanyrelocationofStanningtonFirst

Schoolmust'includetheprovisionofsufficientsafeparkingareas,safeaccessforvehicles,andgoodcycleandpedestrianaccesstoStanningtonVillage.'Ourconcernlieswiththeexpectationof'safeparking

areas',theNCCSustainableModesofTravelStrategy

states'On-siteparkingatschoolsshouldonlybe

providedtoanoperationallevel,withpossible

overflowparkingonhardplayareasforcommunity

uses.Pupilparkinganddropoff/pickupareasshould

notbeprovidedasthisencouragescarusage.'This

couldbeseenasconflictingwiththepolicyproposedin

thePlan.

AcceptaddinginGreen

Beltparagraph.

Inaruralvillageitisnot

realisticthatnopeople

shouldtravelbycar.

Changeassuggested

Nochange–thelocalcommunityfeltstrongly

thatitwasimportanttoprovidesafeparking

areas.Althoughitisacceptedthatcaruse

shouldnotbeencouraged,therealityina

villagelikeStannington,wheremanychildren

cometotheschoolfromsurroundingvillages,

isthatparentswilldrivetheirchildrento


October2017

29


Policy


school,whichdoespresentasafetyconcern

attheschool.

16 NCC p.15Policy

Explanation

WesuggestremovingtheCommunityActions1and2

inthepolicyexplanationtexttohelpmakeitclearthat

itisonlypoliciesandpolicyjustificationsinthissection.

AllCommunityActionsshouldbeplacedinaseparate

annextothePlan.

Agreed CommunityActionsremovedfrompolicy

section.

17 NCC p.16,Policy

4:

Wesuggestchangingthetitleofthispolicyto‘LocalGreenSpace’forthepurposeofclarityintheplan.StanningtonVillagePlayingFieldscouldbelistedinboldtextasthedesignatedGreenSpace,inthepolicy.

TheParishCouncilfeel

thepolicyisclearerifit

referstothespecific

location,however,the

changehasbeenmade

Policytitlechangedto“LocalGreenSpace”

18 NCC p.16Policy

Explanation

Wesuggestthe1stparagraphbeamendedasfollows

forclarity:TheCastleMorpethLocalPlan(2003)whichwillinpartbesupersededbytheCoreStrategycurrentlydesignatesthisareaasProtectedOpenSpaceunderPolicySNC3.

CoreStrategyhasbeen

withdrawnsince

commentmade.

Nochange

19 NCC p.17Green

Belt

Wesuggestchangestothetext,intheseparagraphs,

toreflectthecorrectpositionandterminologyofthe

GreenBeltinthisarea.

Nospecificchangesas

CoreStrategyhasbeen

withdrawn

Nochange


October2017

30


Policy


GreenBelt

CurrentlythewholePlanarea,withtheexceptionofan

insetsforStanningtonVillageandStanningtonStation,

is,asproposedinthesubmittedNorthumberlandCore

Strategy,locatedwithintheproposedintendedtobe

washedoverbyextensionoftheGreenBelt.The

emergingCoreStrategyisproposingto‘inset’

StanningtonStationintheGreenBelt.Thereisa

strongfeelinginthelocalcommunitythatStannington

Stationshouldretainits‘ruralfeel’andthesenseof

opennesswithintheGreenBelt.

TheversionoftheNorthumberlandCoreStrategy

submittedtotheSoSproposesaninsetboundaryfor

thevillage.IfStanningtonStationisinsetintothe

GreenBeltthroughtheemergingCoreStrategy,thenit

maybenecessarytoreviewtheNP,andconsideran

additionalpolicyfordevelopmentinStannington

Station,includingpotentiallydefiningasettlement

boundary,andensuringthatthereisapolicyto

maintaintheopen/ruralfeelofStanningtonStation,

particularlyalongtheroad.


October2017

31


Policy


AsStanningtonStationiscurrentlyintheOpen

CountrysideandtheproposedextensionoftheGreen

Belt,theNPcannotimposelandallocations,

settlementboundariesorotherlandusepolicieswhich

maynotbecompatiblewiththeGreenBelt

designation.

NCC p.18 Biodiversity.WesuggestremovingtheCommunity

Actions3and4inthepolicyexplanationtexttohelp

makeitclearthatitisonlypoliciesandpolicy

justificationsinthissection.AllCommunityActions

shouldbeplacedinaseparateannextothePlan

Agreed AllCommunityActionshavebeenremoved

fromthemainbodyofthePlan.

NCC p.18 Policy5:NewandExpandingRuralBusinesses.

Itisnotedthatsomeofthekeybusinessareasare

washedoverbyGreenBelt.Thereforeexpansionplans

thatgobeyondthescaleandorusesacceptableinthe

GreenBeltwillbejudgedagainsttheneedto

demonstrate‘veryspecialcircumstances’.SPNPPolicy

5couldbemademorecompliantwiththeNPPFby

addingtotheendthefollowing:Anysuchproposals

whichcouldadverselyaffecttheGreenBelt,andthe

purposeforitsdesignation,byvirtueofscale,impact,

locationorusewillneedtobejustifiedeitherasbeing

notinappropriatedevelopmentorthrough

Agreed Paragraphincorporatedintopolicy.


October2017

32


Policy


demonstrationofveryspecialcircumstancesthatcould

justifysupportfortheproposals.

NCC p.19 Wesuggestchangestothetext,inthesecond

sentencetoreflectthecorrectpositionand

terminologyofthegreenbeltinthisarea.

MostofthePlanareaiswithintheproposedextension

ofthegreenbelt.ThewholePlanarea,withthe

exceptionofaninsetsforStanningtonVillageand

StanningtonStationisasproposedinthesubmitted

NorthumberlandCoreStrategylocatedwithinthe

proposedintendedtobewashedoverbyextensionof

theGreenBeltandThisdesignation…

CoreStrategynow

withdrawn

Nochange

21 NCC p.19Policy

6

Wesuggesttoreferto‘theprovider’or‘the

responsiblebody’orsomesuchphraseinsteadofa

particularcompanylikeBT,asnamesand

responsibilitiesmaychange.

Agreed Delete‘BT’andreplacewith‘theprovideror

responsiblebody’

22 NCC p.20 WesuggestremovingtheCommunityAction5inthe

policyexplanationtexttohelpmakeitclearthatitis

onlypoliciesandpolicyjustificationsinthissection.All

CommunityActionsshouldbeplacedinaseparate

annextothePlan.

Agreed RemovereferencetoCommunityAction5.


October2017

33


Policy


23 NCC Page20,

Policy7:

Safety

improveme

ntstothe

road

network

Thetitleofthepolicyatthemomentdoesn'treflect

therequirementsofthepolicyasitsolelyfocuseson

safetyandtheroadnetwork.Thepolicyconsiders

accessibilitytosupportsustainablemodesand

infrastructureimprovementsforexample.Wesuggest

splittingpolicy7into3separatepolicies,toreflectthe

themesmentionedinthepolicytext.

Policy7.SafetyImprovementsontheroad

network�PolicyX.e.g.Safecyclingandwalking

routes�PolicyX.e.g.HighwaySafetyInfrastructureand

PlanningConditions.(Whataretheissuesthatthe

evidencecollectedtosupporttheplanidentifiesas

infrastructuredeficitsthatcouldbeaddressedthrough

financialplanningobligationsorplanningconditions?)

SafeandSafetyismentioned5timesinthepolicy.We

suggestperhapsbroadeningthescopeofthispolicyto

considerotherhighwayimprovementsbeyondsafety.

Thepolicyorpoliciesifsplitinto3couldalsoconsider

thingslikeconnectionsandmanagementofspacesin

theirremit.

Agreed ThePolicyhasbeenseparatedinto3separate

policiesassuggested,withanumberof

changesmadetothesupportingtext.

24 NCC p.21 Wesuggestthepolicyexplanationshouldbekept

separatefromthenon-planningtopicssoadecision

makerwouldnotbeinfluencedorconfusedbythe

information.AllCommunityActionsshouldbeplaced

inaseparateannextothePlan.

Agreed

CommunityActionreferenceremovedtoPart

6


October2017

34


Policy


25 NCC p.22 WesuggestremovingtheCommunityActions6to9in

thepolicyexplanationtexttohelpmakeitclearthatit

isonlypoliciesandpolicyjustificationsinthissection.

AllCommunityActionsshouldbeplacedinaseparate

annextothePlan.

Agreed CommunityActionreferenceremovedtoPart

6

26 NCC p.22

Policy8

WeareverypleasedtoseeSuDSincludedaspartof

thispolicy.�Besidestheabove,wenotethatthereare

nootherreferencestofloodingordrainage

throughoutthedocument.TheNeighbourhoodPlan

areaincludestheriverBlythandmanyothersmaller

(ordinary)watercourses.Newdevelopmentshouldbe

sitedawayfromareasoffloodrisk,buildingsnot

constructedoverwatercoursesandSuDSusedasa

priorityfordisposingsurfacewater.ThePlancould

makereferencetothismatter.

Agreeditcould.

However,aNPdoesnot

needtocovermatters

thatarealreadycovered

elsewhere,orwhich

havenotbeenraisedby

thelocalcommunity.

Thesequentialtestfor

developmentis

adequatelyaddressedin

theNPPF.

Nochange.

27 NCC p.24 WesuggestremovingtheCommunityActions10and

11inthepolicyexplanationtexttohelpmakeitclear

thatitisonlypoliciesandpolicyjustificationsinthis

section.AllCommunityActionsshouldbeplacedina

separateannextothePlan.

Agreed CommunityActions10and11removed.


October2017

35


Policy


28 NCC p.26Part6: Wesuggestaddingalittleextrainformationand

explanationtotheCommunityActionssectionofthe

Plan.SomeadoptedNPshaveoptedfortheir

CommunityActionstobedetailedinaspecificsection

intheplaninamatrixthatshowsthedeliverabilityof

theaction.[Examplegiven]

Noted Nochange

29 Page26,

Part6:

Community

Action6

Communityaction6includesliaisingwithNCC

Highwaysauthoritytoaddresssafetyconcernsaround

theschool.ThisisaFirstResponseschoolwithvarious

activitiesdeliveredbyNCCoverrecentyears.

Noted Nochange

30 Page26,

Part6:

Community

Action8

CommunityAction8istobesupportedwhichoffersto

workwithNCCPublicRightsofWayofficerstoimprove

footpathsandbridlewaysinthearea.Howeverno

mentionismadetoworkwithHighwaysEnglandwith

regardtoissuesofwalkers/cyclistscrossingtheA1at

StanningtonwhichNCCagainhighlightedintheHE

RouteStrategyconsultation.Thoughthereismuch

mentionofworkingwithotherareastoimprove

infrastructurethereperhapsneedstobemore

emphasisordetailsofsupportonimprovingwalking

andcyclinglinksbetweenneighbouringtownsand

villagesincludingCramlington,Bedlingtonandeven

PontelandandNewcastle.

Noted Nochange

31 NCC Page26

Part6:

ItiswelcomedthattheParishCouncilwishestowork

closelywithNCCandneighbouringparishes

(CommunityAction9)topushforinfrastructure

improvementswhichwouldreducetheimpactof

Noted Nochange


October2017

36


Policy


Community

Action9

trafficintheplanareaespeciallyStationRoad.This

includesthenotionofafour-wayjunctionatCliftonor

WhaltonRoadontotheA1.

32 NCC General

comment

Wesuggestthatparagraphsarenumberedtomakeit

easierforrepresentationstobedefinedpreciselyon

theSubmissionversionofthePlan.Thiswouldassist

theExaminerinpreparingasuitablyreferencedreport.

Agreed Paragraphsadded

33 Historic

England

General

Comments

WewelcomeCommunityAction11toseekdesignation

ofaconservationareaatStanningtonafterappropriate

appraisalofthearea’sspecialinterest.Wehaveno

othercommenttomakeonthedetailoftheplan.

Noted Nochange

34 Northum

bria

Water

General

Comments

WearepleasedtonotethattheStannington

NeighbourhoodDevelopmentPlanSteeringGroup

havereachedthisdetailedstageinthepreparationof

theNeighbourhoodPlanandareusingthisopportunity

toinfluencedevelopmentintheneighbourhoodplan

areathroughdevelopinglocalpoliciesandcommunity

actions.WehavereviewedthePre-Submission

ConsultationDraftandwesetoutbelowcomments

whichwefeelareofrelevanceorhaveanimpactonus

asthestatutorywaterandsewerageundertaker.We

welcomethatsustainabledevelopmentisattheheart

ofcommunityaspirationsinStanningtonwhichreflects

theprinciplescontainedwithintheNPPF.Wefurther

supportthevisionidentifiedfortheNPandthe

Notedwiththanks Nochange


October2017

37


Policy


objectivesincludedtosupportthedeliveryofthe

vision.

Inparticular,wewelcomethatpartcofPolicy8

promotestheincorporationofsustainabledesign

measuresinnewdevelopmentswithspecificreference

toSUDS.Suchsystemscanprovidemultiplebenefitsin

additiontotheirprimaryroleinfloodrisk

management.Additionalbenefitsincludethepotential

forimprovementstowaterquality,amenityand

biodiversityinthelocalarea.Wewelcomethatthe

NeighbourhoodPlanencouragestheuseofSUDSon

newdevelopmentsandconsiderthatthiswillpromote

sustainablewatermanagementintheneighbourhood

planarea.Toconclude,wecongratulatetheSteering

Groupontheproductionofpoliciesthatpromote

sustainabledevelopmentintheSPNParea.Wehope

thatourcommentsareusefulandwelookforwardto

theprogressionoftheNeighbourhoodPlantowards

submissionandadoption.

35 National

Grid

General

Comments

Generalcommentsmadewithregardtopresenceof

infrastructure.Informationgivenaboutcontactsat

NationalGrid.Nospecificchangesrecommended.

Noted Nochange


October2017

38


Policy


36 Natural

England

General

Comments

Theplanstatesthat‘therearenohabitatsorspecies

designationswithinthePlanarea’(p.9).Itiscorrect

thattheplanareadoesnotincludeinternational,

nationalorlocalsitesthathavebeendesignatedfor

theirbiodiversity.However,theplanareadoesinclude

severalpriorityhabitats,aslistedonSection41ofthe

NERCAct2006.Inaddition,AncientWoodlandis

presentalongtheRiverBlythandthePegwhistleBurn.

Planobjectives:NaturalEnglandwelcomesthe

inclusionofobjective2onthenaturalenvironment:

Thepartoftheobjectivethatreferstowildlifeis

unclear:doesitreferto‘wildlife’solelyor‘wildlife

spaces’?Forclarity,weadvisetoadaptthisobjective

toeither‘biodiversity’or‘wildlifeandtheirhabitats’.

Inaddition,weadvisetonotjustrefertomaintenance

ofthenaturalenvironment,butalsotoenhancement,

inlinewithNPFparas9and109.

GreenInfrastructure:Theplanareaiswithinanarea

thatNEconsiderscouldbenefitfromenhancedgreen

infrastructureprovision.Multi-functionalgreen

infrastructurecanperformarangeoffunctions

includingimprovedfloodriskmanagement,provision

ofaccessiblegreenspace,climatechangeadaptation

andbiodiversityenhancement.NEwouldencourage

theincorporationofGIintotheNP.TheNCCGreen

InfrastructureStrategymaycontainusefulinformation

Noted–however,the

Planisbasedonissues

whichwereraised

throughcommunity

consultation.Green

Infrastructurewasnot

anissuethatwasraised,

andthereforehasnot

beenincorporatedinto

thePlan.Itsomission

doesnotmeanthat

strategicGInetworks

cannotbeprogressedby

NCCthroughemerging

strategies,andthe

ParishCouncilwould

supportsuchmeasures.

However,itisnotforthe

NeighbourhoodPlanto

addressallissues,only

thosethatareof

concerntothelocal

community

Nochange


October2017

39


Policy


onthelocationofGI.Moreinformationandcase

studiescanbeaccessedonNE’sGIpages.TheNP

containsvariouscomponentsthatcouldbelinkedto

GI:

Policy7:GIcanprovidesafeandattractivecyclingand

walkingroutes;

Policy8:SuDScanbeincorporatedintoGIandcannot

onlymanagefloodrisk,butalsocontributeto

biodiversityandamenity.Inaddition,GIcanalso

provideaccessforpedestriansandcyclists,aswellas

suitablelandscapingandopenspace.Referencemight

usefullybemadeintheparagraphonHeritageAssets

tothefactthattheremayalsobepotentialinthearea

forunrecordedorcurrentlyundiscoveredheritage

assetsofarchaeologicalinterest

37 MMO General

Comments

GeneralCommentsregardingtheroleofMMO.No

seabordersinStannington

Noted Nochange

38 MrBrad

Holbrook

(viaWard

Hadaway)

p.4 Itissuggestedthatthelastsentenceinthissectionbe

revised.Thereareanumberofconsiderations

relevanttothedeterminationofplanningapplications.

TheseincludeDevelopmentPlanpoliciesandother

materialconsiderations.Toreflectthis,achangeof

wordingissuggested:

Agreed

Changesmadeassuggested


October2017

40


Policy


PoliciesinthePlanwillbeusedbyDevelopmentManagementOfficersattheCountyCounciltoassistindecidinghowtodetermineplanningapplications.

TheprincipleofhavingaPlanforStannington

NeighbourhoodAreaissupported.Asnotedabove

thisresponseissubmittedonbehalfofalandowner

andresidentoftheNParea.

Notedwiththanks

39 MrBrad

Holbrook

(viaWard

Hadaway)

p.8 Acknowledgingthatparagraph1describesStannington

Parishasapredominantlyruralarea,itisnotappropriate

inparagraph2todescribeStanningtonStationasa‘rural’

settlement,theothersettlementsnotbeingsodescribed.

Itissuggestedthatthefirstsentenceofparagraph2be

amendedtostates;

‘StanningtonStationisagrowingsettlement.FacilitieswithinStanningtonStationincludeMoorhouseFarmShop,agarage/shopandanIndianRestaurant’

Itisconsideredthatthe

currentwording

accuratelyreflectsthe

characterof

StanningtonStation.

Nochange

40 MrBrad

Holbrook

(viaWard

Hadaway)

p.8–Green

Belt

TheNeighbourhoodPlanshouldsupporttheprinciple

ofStanningtonStationbeinginsetwithintheGreen

Belt.Inthisrespectitisnotnecessarytoprevent

developmentinStanningtonStationtoprotectits

character.

GreenBeltpolicyisa

strategicmatterforthe

CountyCouncilnot

withintheremitofa

NeighbourhoodPlan

Nochange

41 MrBrad

Holbrook

(viaWard

Hadaway)

p.9–

Transport

Generalsupportexpressed.Stanningtonand

StanningtonStationarebothsustainablelocations

whichprovidegoodaccesstokeyinfrastructure

Noted Nochange


October2017

41


Policy


42 MrBrad

Holbrook

(viaWard

Hadaway)

p.11-

Vision

GeneralsupportfortheVisionexpressed. Notedwiththanks Nochange

43 MrBrad

Holbrook

(viaWard

Hadaway)

p.11

Objective2

Thereferenceto‘important’openspaceswithinthe

Objectiveisnotedandsupported.Itfollowsother

spacesneednotbemaintainedasamatterof

principle.

Noted.Thisdoesnot

necessarilyfollow,but

supportnoted.

Nochange

44 MrBrad

Holbrook

(viaWard

Hadaway)

p.11-12–

Visionand

Objectives

TheVisionandObjectivesaresilentinrelationto

housing.Additionalhousingamongstotherthings

wouldsupportthelocaleconomy.Itissurprising

thereforethereisnotamentionintheVisionand

ObjectivessectionofthePlan.Theinclusionofa

specifichousingobjectiveorupdatingoftheexisting

objectivesissuggested/requested.

Extensiveconsultation

hastakenplaceto

developmentthe

StanningtonParish

NeighbourhoodPlan.

Housingobjectiveswere

consultedonatanearly

stage,anddidnot

receivesupportfromthe

localcommunity.The

Planwillgoto

referendumifitpasses

examination,andneeds

tobealliedto

communitywishes.The

Plandoesnotseekto

preventhousinginthe

Parish,itmerelyremains

silentonthematter,and

Nochange


October2017

42


Policy


seekstoensurethatnew

developmentwhereit

doestakeplace,is

sustainable,well

designed,and

appropriateforits

location.

45 MrBrad

Holbrook

(viaWard

Hadaway)

p.12Green

Beltand

the

application

ofpolicies2

and5

Itissuggestedthatthefirstsentenceofthepolicybe

revisedtostate:

WiththeexceptionofStanningtonVillage,allthesettlementsidentifiedinthePlanandonthepoliciesmaparewithinthegeneralextentoftheproposedGreenBeltextensionaroundMorpeth’

Areasonforthechangeisthatassetoutinthe

consultation(p.17para1underheadingGreenBelt’),

currentlythewholePlanarea,withtheexceptionofan

insetforStanningtonVillage,islocatedwithinthe

proposedextensionoftheGreenBelt.Itremainsfor

preciseboundaries,includingthosearound

settlements,tobedefined.

Agreed Wordingchangedassuggested–allgreen

beltreferenceswillberevertingto‘preCore

Strategy’wordingduetotheCoreStrategy

beingwithdrawninJuly2017

46 MrBrad

Holbrook

(viaWard

Hadaway)

p.14–

policy

explanation

(final

paragraph)

SupportthelistingofStanningtonStationasa

settlement.Thelistedsettlementsshouldbedescribed

asbeingwithinthegeneralextentoftheproposed

GreenBelt.Assetoutelsewhere,theNPshould

SupportforStannington

Stationasasettlement

noted.

NeighbourhoodPlans

cannotdetermine

Nochange


October2017

43


Policy


proposetoinsetStanningtonStationfromthegreen

belt.

strategicmatters,such

asgreenbelt

boundaries.Thisisa

matterfortheCounty

Council.

47 MrBrad

Holbrook

(viaWard

Hadaway)

p.17–

GreenBelt

Submissionincludesextensiveinformationandfurther

requesttoinsetStanningtonStationinthegreenbelt,

withmapsofproposedinsetsfromtheCoreStrategy,

aswellasinformationfromtheSHLAA.

Notwithstandingtheabove,theNPshouldpermit

infillinginStanningtonStation.

Asstatedabove,the

NeighbourhoodPlan

cannotdetermine

strategicmatterssuchas

greenbeltboundaries.

Thisisamatterforthe

CountyCouncil.

StanningtonStationis

currentlyinthegreen

belt.The

NeighbourhoodPlan

cannothavepolicies

whicharenotin

conformitywithnational

planningpolicy,inthis

case,withregardtothe

greenbelt.Each

planningapplicationis

treatedonitsmerits,

andinaccordancewith

greenbeltpolicy.

Nochange


October2017

44


Policy


48 MrBrad

Holbrook

(viaWard

Hadaway)

p.18–

policy5

Supporttheprinciple.Newhousingdevelopment

wouldhelpsupportlocalbusiness.Asacknowledgedin

thepolicyexplanation,theGreenBeltdesignationwill

entailrestriction.ThisisafurtherreasonfortheNPto

includeinsetboundariesincludingforStannington

Station

NeighbourhoodPlans

cannotdetermine

strategicmatters,such

asgreenbelt

boundaries.Thisisa

matterfortheCounty

Council.

Nochange

48 MrBrad

Holbrook

(viaWard

Hadaway)

p.19–

Policy6

Supporttheprinciple.Theimpactonviabilitymust

howeverbeaddressed.

Noted Nochange

49 MrBrad

Holbrook

(viaWard

Hadaway)

p.20–

Policy7

Improvementstotheroadnetworkwouldbe

welcomed.Asageneralcommentdevelopmentsneed

tobeofasufficientsizeforcontributionstobe

enabled(subjecttoviability).

Noted. Nochange

50 MrBrad

Holbrook

(viaWard

Hadaway)

p.22–

Policy8

AnopportunitytodiscussMrHolbrook’s

representationsandthefutureoftheSHLAAsite6843

wouldbewelcomed.

Theseissuesneedtobe

addresseddirectlywith

theCountyCouncil

throughthenextversion

oftheCoreStrategy.

TheParishCouncilhave

notifiedMrHolbrookof

this.

Nochange

51 MrBrad

Holbrook

p.25–Part

5

ForreasonsdiscussedinMrHolbrook’sother

representations,theNPshouldbewrittentoreflect

policiesintheemergingLocalPlan.Inparticularthe

Noted.Seeprevious

responsesonthis

matter.The

Nochange


October2017

45


Policy


(viaWard

Hadaway)

NPshouldincludeaninsetboundaryforStannington

Stationwhichamongstotherthingswouldobviatea

needforareview.

NeighbourhoodPlan

mustbeingeneral

conformitywithstrategic

policiesinthe

DevelopmentPlan.The

CoreStrategyisnotpart

oftheDevelopmentPlan

andhasbeen

withdrawn.Althoughit

isgoodpracticetobe

alignedtoemerging

strategicpolicy,theNP

cannotinanyevent,

altergreenbelt

boundaries.


October2017

46

APPENDIXD:FULLRESPONSESTOVISIONANDOBJECTIVESCONSULTATION–SEPTEMBER2015

OurVision

“ToimprovetheeconomicandcommunitysustainabilityoftheParishforthebenefitofresidentsandbusinesses,throughtheprovisionofwell-plannedhousing,communityfacilitiesandinfrastructuretomeettheircurrentandfutureneeds,whilstmaintainingandenhancingthespecialqualitiesofthecountrysideandtheuniquecharacteristicsoftheindividualsettlementswithintheParishofStannington.”

Ref Doyouagreewith

thisvisionfor

Stannington

Doyouhaveotherideas

1 None None

2,4,8,

12,15,

22

Yes None

3 Weagreewiththis

vision

None

5,16-20,

36-39,

42-43

Yes/No

WedonotagreethatStanningtonStationRoadhastherightinfrastructurefornewhousingdevelopment.Wehaveissueswith

traffic,broadband,telephoneconnectionandriskofsewerflooding.

Thespecialqualitiesanduniquecharacterwillbedamagedbynewhousingduetotheremovalofagriculturalfieldsfor

development.

6 Yesinprinciple WewouldlikethespecialcharacteristicsofStanningtonStationRoadtoreflecttheopendispersednatureofthecurrent

development.Weappreciatetheopenagriculturalfieldsthatmakeupsomeoursettlement.


October2017

47

Wearealsoworriedaboutthevolumeoftrafficontheroadandtheimpactofcongestionatthelevelcrossingonourchildren’s

health.WehavebeentoldbyanairpollutionspecialistatNorthumberlandCountyCouncilthatsomeofthepollutionwillbe

dispersedviatheopenfields.Iftheybecomemorebuiltupwe’reworriedthatanyincreasesintrafficovertheyearswillimpact

onusmoreandourchildren’shealth.

7 Generally,yes. Vision

Stanningtonisasmallparishwithaveryruralcharacter.Iwouldhopethatthespecialqualitieswhichcontributetothatcharacter

willbe,asfaraspossible,protectedandthatunseemlyquantitiesofinappropriatehousingwillnotbepermitted.

SPNPVisionStatement:

‘.......wellplannedhouse,.........maintainingandenhancingthespecialqualities.....individualsettlements.......’

IwilllooktothedeliverybodyfortheSPNPtodeliver.

9 Yes–alsofor

StanningtonStation

StationRoadisuniqueinthatitisalineardevelopmentthatisbisectedbythemainEastCoastline–rural-andintheheartofthe

countryside.EveryeffortshouldbemadetoretainStationRoad’scharacterandensuringthatthereistheinfrastructureinplace

tomaintainthis.SignificantnewhousingdevelopmentswillbecontrarytotheabovevisionandthecharacterofStationRoad.

10 No IsthisthevisionforStanningtononly?

OrdoesStationRoadgetincludedinthis?

Ifso–StationRoadneedsnewpavementsandlightingtoprovideuswiththeinfrastructurementioned.

Wherewillthefinancecomefromandhowfarinthefuturewillithappen?

11 Disagreewiththe

insetboundaryon

StationRoad

Thescopefordevelopmentistoolargeandisnotinkeepingwithitssurroundings.Thisscopeisnotsustainableasthereis

limitedfacilities*StanningtonNurseries*isnolongerthereasissuggestedonseveralitemsofpaperworkonlineandpresented

forviewingatthevillagehallon21-9-15.Alotoftheproposedscopewillimpactalsoonwildlifeaswildlifecorridorswillbebuilt

uponifallowedalsotherearecovenantsoncertainlandandthesecovenantswhichareforagriculturaluseonly.

13 No Everythingweneedastofacilitiesarewithin3milessotheuniquecharacteristicsoftheindividualsettlementswithinthatParish

shouldstayastheyarebecausethat’swhywechosetolivehere.


October2017

48

FurtherdevelopmentisplannedalreadyatStMarysaswellasLoansdean,StobhillandNetherton,howmuchmorecanthearea

takebeforeweturnintoonemassivehousingestate.

14 Yes Seefollowingnotes

21 YesandNo IdonotthinkthatStationRdisappropriateforfurtherhousingdevelopment

1)thetrafficlevelsarealreadytoohigh

2)Riskofseweroverload

3)Problemswithfloodingfromrainwater‘runoff’

23 Agreeinprinciple

buthave

reservationsabout

theprovisionof

furtherhousing

None

24 Partly AsmuchasIknowintoday‘life’counciletchavetohavevisionandmethodstatements(paperchasing)etcIdobelievelikemost

peoplewepurchasedourhouseonStationRoadStanningtonfortheuniquecharacteristicstheRoadienohousingestates,

individualwellbuilthousesnotmanyneighbours.Furtherdevelopmentcoverthebeautifullandscapewehaveatpresentwill

takeawaytheappealoflivinginsuchabeautifulareaofNorthumberland.ThereisnobenefittothepresentresidentsofStation

Roadforfurtherdevelopmentasforfacilitiesetc.wehaveafarmshop,cafe,andintoday’sworldtwo.??..garagestheservices

aresufficientmoredevelopmentwouldmeanmoreshopsetcagaintakingawaytheappealoflivingonStationRoad.

IwouldalsoliketoaskthevisionstatementisitfromthepeopleonStationRoadoroutsiders?

25 Notentirely ‘VisionforStannington’:Housingwhereappropriateneedstobewellplannedancommunityfacilitiesmaybeappropriateinthe

village–but‘infill’developmentofhousingonStanningtonStationRoadwillnotimproveanythingforresidentshereandwould

detrimentaltothequalitiesofthearea.Also,steadilyincreasingtrafficpresentaconflictwithsaferesidentialuse.

26 None Wemayendupburstingattheseams,butperhapsitwillbringbenefitsiewalkwaysandbetterstreetlighting.

27 Yes/No WedonotagreethatStanningtonStationRoadhastherightinfrastructurefornewhousingdevelopment.Wehaveissueswith



October2017

49


development.

IdonotagreethatStanningtonStationhastherightinfrastructureofnewhousingdevelopment.Theroadcannotbewidened,a

footpathislackinginpartsandfutureroadconnectionsbroughtaboutbyhousingdevelopmentwillcreatetrafficproblemsand

increasedangerintoanalreadysub-standardroadthatisnotwellmaintained.

28 Yes/No WedonotagreethatStanningtonStationRoadhastherightinfrastructurefornewhousingdevelopment.Wehaveissueswith



development.

Wehaveseriousissuewithcongestionatthelevelcrossing.AlsoBritishRailareoftenclosingtheroadformaintenance,noise

duringmaintenanceisarealissuetoresidents.

29 Withreservations Theuniquecharacteristicsoftheindividualsettlementsseemstomeetcurrentneedsinmanyareasandtheseshouldbe

preservedinanyfutureplanning.

30 Yes,coversboth

expansionwhere

requiredand

safeguardsif

necessary

31 No ThewideboundaryproposedforStationRoadwilltransformitfromaruralroadintoahousingestatewithnofacilitiestosupport

them.Theonlypeopletobenefitwillbethelandownersthatwillprofitfromthedevelopment.

Theruralcharacteroftheroadwillbedestroyed.Thetaxpayerwillhavetofootthebilltomaketheroadsafeforallnew

residents–pavements,streetlightingcrossings,trafficspeedcalmingmeasuresetc.

LotsofhousingonStationRoadwillnotmakeitsustainableitwillnotattractnewbusiness.

ItwilljustdestroytheruralcharacterofStationRoadwithunnecessaryhousing.

TheparishofStanningtonisdiverse.Thevillagewouldbenefitfromthisvisionwithitswideboundaryallowsformassivehousing

development.Facilitiesontheroadareverylimited.Masshousingwilldestroythespecialqualitiesoftheroadanditsrural


October2017

50

characteristics.TheonebusinesstheFarmShopemployslocalpeoplethereareafewsmallbusinessesrunfromresidential

premisesthatdonotemployothersanddonotaddtosustainability.Housingneedshavebeenmetandthereasonfor

developmentispurelyindividualmonetarygain.Itwilldestroytheuniquecharacteristicsoftheroad.

32 Yes,agreewiththe

visioningeneral

termsfortheparish

butnotthevisit

regardingStation

Road.

TheParishisverydiverseinstructure,particularlywithreferencetoStationRoadwhoseinfrastructuredoesnotsupportfurther

housingdevelopment.PeoplechoosetoliveatStationRdbecauseofitsquietruralopencountrysidesetting.Developmentwill

definitelychangetheuniquecharacteristicsoftheareaintermsofopencountrysideandagriculture,andconsideringthe

proposedboundaryisextremelylargeinarea,couldbecomealargehousingestatewithoutthesustainablefacilitiesrequiredto

supportit.

Thereareissueswithtrafficcongestionandspeed,roadsafety,sewercapacity,lighting,pavements,broadbandspeeds,poor

transport,lackofamenitiesathandetc.

33 No WedonotagreethatStanningtonStationRoadhastherightinfrastructurefornewhousingdevelopment.Wehaveissueswith

traffic,broadband,telephoneconnectionandriskofsewerflooding.Thespecialqualitiesanduniquecharacterwillbedamaged

bynewhousingduetotheremovalofagriculturalfieldsfordevelopment.

34 No WedonotagreethatStanningtonStationRoadhastherightinfrastructurefornewhousingdevelopment.Wehaveissueswith

traffic,broadband,telephoneconnectionandriskofsewerflooding.Thespecialqualitiesanduniquecharacterwillbedamaged

bynewhousingduetotheremovalofagriculturalfieldsandgreenspacesBeechleaStanningtonfordevelopment.

35 Yes/No StationRoad,Stannington

WedonotagreethatStationRoadhastherightinfrastructurefornewhousingdevelopmentonthescaleofplansfor

development.Wehave“TrafficIssues”poorservicestelephone,broadband,powercuts,poorfootpaths.

IfdevelopmentisallowedonthescaleofplansinplaceStationRoadwillloseitscharacteranditsuniquequalitieswhichcan

neverbereplaced.

40 Yes WedonotagreethatStanningtonStationRoadhastherightinfrastructurefornewhousingdevelopment.Wehaveissueswith



development.

*Noteimportantworksinvision:

Countryside


October2017

51

Uniquecharacteristics

Infrastructure

Well-planned

community

41 No ProvisionofTransport/RoadlinkstoStMarysParkverypoor.

Lackofstreetlightingonestate.

Roadspoorlymaintainedpotholes/lackofroadmarkings/visibilityturningintotheestate

CONCLUSION:

SUPPORT=15(35%),DON'TSUPPORT=8(18.5%),NOTSURE/UNCLEAR=20(46.5%)

Ref Doyouagreewiththisobjective?

1,2,4,8,12,15,22,35 Yes

3 Yesweagreewiththeobjectivepreferringsmallscaledevelopments

5,16-20,24,33-

34,36,38-

40,42,4327-28

Noifwehavefulfilledthehousingrequirementoverthecountycouncilplanperiodwedon’thavetoplanformorehousing.

6 Inpart.Weappreciatethattherehavebeensomeobjectivelyassessedneedsforpeopleintheparish.Weworrythatopenmarket

housingmightnotcontributetothisneedaswebelievethatelsewheretheyhavemadeonacontributiontoNCCtobuild

elsewhere.Wedoquestiontheneedformoreopenmarkethousingifwehavealreadyfulfilledthehousingrequirementfromthe

CountyCouncilPlan.

7 StanningtonStationRoad,whereIliveandaboutwhichIfeelconfidenttocomment,isparticularlyvulnerabletoin-filldevelopment

whichprobablywouldnotsolveanyparticularproblemnotsupplyforspecificneed.Thistypeofareaispotentiallyopentoabuse

bynon-residentlandownersandothersinpositionsofauthoritywhomighthavevestedinterestinseeingdevelopershavefree

reign.Ifthereistobedevelopmentthenitshouldbearesponsetoaclearlyidentifiedneed.ThisextractisfromoneoftheNCC

planningdocumentsandlookstobeagoodsetofguidelinesfromwhichtoplan.


October2017

52

Aparticularfocuswillbeplacedonimprovingpeople’saccesstoaffordablehousinginruralareaswheretherehasbeenlow

numbersofaffordablehousingdelivered,particularlywherethiswillboostlocalcommunitiesandeconomies.

Brownfieldsitesareobviousplacesforre-usebeforegreenfieldsareploughedup.ItdistressesmewhenIseelocalbusinessclose

andclearedtocreatebrownfieldsites.Inmyinnocenceandignorance,whilerecognizingtheprivatenatureofsomebusiness

activities,Icannothelpbutwonderwhysuchactionsarepermitted.

9 No–provisionofhousingmustbeobjectivelyassessedforthefuture–Housingneedsinthisareahavebeenmet.

10,11,13,41 No

12 Yes

14 Yes–BUT:encouraginghousingfortheelderlyandfirsttimebuyersisuselessunlessthereisprovisionforatleastonelocalshop

sellingbasicfoodetc.

21 AffordablehousingisagoodideaifitfocusedonStanningtonVillage

23 No.IfParishhasfulfilledthehousingrequirementoverNCCplanperiodwherehasneedforsmallerpropertiescomefrom?There

are2newdevelopmentsunderwayinMorpeth,1justNorthoftheparishboundary.Thesedevelopmentsincludetheprovisionof

105“affordablerent”or“discountmarketvalue”unitsbetweenthemlessthan10minutesfromtheheartoftheParish.Surely

thesecovertheneedforsmallerpropertieswithoutaffectivethecharacterofthevillageandsettlementswithintheparish

boundaries.

TheattractionforpeopleinandmovingtotheParishistheideaoflivingwithinasmallruralcommunityratherthanlargertowns.

FurthersmallscaledevelopmentsinStanningtonVillageandStanningtonStationwouldhaveadetrimentaleffectontheoverall

scaleofthesesettlements.StanningtonVillagecurrentlyhasapprox170homes.Ifonlysay17homeswereaddedthatincreases

thesizeby10%.Ifthose17homeswereaddedtothedevelopmentatStMary’sitwouldonlyresultinanincreaseofapprox5%.

Youngadults/olderteenagersaremoreinclinedtomoveawayfromthevillageastheywouldprefertoliveinatownorcity.

Ultimatelyitisthemidtooldergenerationswhowanttoliveinamorerurallocationwithaslowerpaceoflife.


October2017

53

25 No.Ireadthisobjectiveasfavouringincreasinghousingdevelopmentinanopenruralarea.

26 None

29 Withreservations.Ifthehousingrequirementisfulfilleddoweneedmore?ManypeopledonotaspiretoliveintheParishforits

communityassetsbutforitsuniqueruralqualitieswhichshouldnotbesacrificed.

30 Yes,it’svitaltohaveaplaninplacetoallowforexpansionasrequired.Havingtheoptiontobuilddoesn’tmeanitwillactually

happen,justmeanschoiceistherelater.

31 No.Thereisnohousingneed–housingneedshavebeenmet.

32 No,thevolumeofhousingneedsintheareahavebeenmet.

37 Noifwehavefulfilledthehousingrequirementoverthecountycouncilplanperiodwedon’thavetoplanformorehousing.

Thereare9.6acresofdevelopmentlandforsaleatHescottPark,newhousesthereinadditiontotheStobhillnewestatewill

substantiallyincreasethetrafficonStationRoadwithoutbuildingonStanningtonStationitself.

CONCLUSION:

SUPPORT:11(25.5%)DON'TSUPPORT:27(63%)NOTSURE/UNCLEAR:5(11.5%)

OBJECTIVE1-Continued…

Ref Havewegottherightsettlements?

1,2,12,14,

22,

Yes

3 ThisomitsClifton,NethertonPark,MoorLane,Blagdoniftheseareomittedthenwilltheybesubjecttogreenbeltinthefuture?

4,7,15,21,35 None

5 No.Idon’tbelieveStanningtonStationRoadissustainable,wedonothaveagoodbusservices,thefarmshopisexpensiveandisonlyused

infrequentlybyresidents.Weonlyhavesmallemploymentopportunities.


October2017

54

6 Idon’tunderstandwhyStanningtonStationisbeingclassedassustainable.Weareaverydispersedsettlement,theX44doesnotofferagood

serviceandthe57Aisnotwithin1kmformostofususingpublicfootpaths.Idon’tknowiftheIndianRestaurantandpetrolstationcanbeclassedas

communityassets.WewouldarguethatStanningtonVillagehasmoreemploymentopportunitiesthanus–thepubemploys50peopleandthe

school17,butyouhaveratesusashavingsmallemployment.

8 Notsure

9 No–StationRoadisnotasettlement–itisnotsustainableArrivarecentlywithdrewearlymorningandeveningservicesalloftheservicesareatthe

end.Poorlinksbetweenthem.Limitedemploymentopportunities.

10 ItwouldseembytherecentspateofplanningapplicationsthatStanningtonStationcouldbegettingwaymorethanitsfairshare.

11 Itisalrightasitis

13 No

16 No.Idon’tbelieveStanningtonStationRoadissustainable,wedonothaveagoodbusservices,thefarmshopisexpensiveandisonlyused


17-20,27,

28,33,34,

36-40,42,

43

No.Idon’tbelieveStanningtonStationRoadissustainable,wedonothaveagoodbusservices,thefarmshopisexpensiveandisonlyused


23 No–StationRdisaverybusyroadwithspeedingtrafficparticularatthelevelcrossing.Poorpavements,poorstreetlightingandnocrossings.Itis

unsuitableforchildren,oldpeople,theinfirm,pedestriansandcyclists.

24 OnStationRoadYes,Iasaresidentarehappywiththelimitedbusservicelessbusescomingdowntheroad,farmshopoffersagoodrangeandtwo

rivalgaragesveryluckyweare.

25 StanningtonVillage,StMarys&HepscottParkarepossiblyright–StanningtonStationnotbecauseitsalignedalongabusythroughroute.

26 ThepossibilitiesofmorehouseshencemoretransportonStationRoadbringingproblems!

29 Twooftheproposedsettlementscouldonlyaccommodateverylimiteddevelopment.


October2017

55

30 Yes,probablysensibleoneswithreasonableaccessalreadytoroads,servicesetcandmaintainopencountryside.

31 No–StationRoadisnotasuitablelocationformorehousing.Roadtoobusy,speedingissues,levelcrossing,poorpavements,poorstreetlighting,

nosafeplacesforchildrentomeetandplay.Dangerousforcyclistsandpedestrians.

32 No,ifyouapplythemetricsusedbymanycouncilstodeterminesustainability,StationRdiswithoutdoubt,notsustainable.Busserviceinadequate,

limitedemploymentopportunities/businesses.Onlyanexpensivefarmshopwithlimitedgoods.Nochildren’splayarea.Safetyissueswithlevel

crossandinadequatepavements.

41 NowhereatStMarysfortheelderly,pavementsunsuitableforwheelchairaccess.

CONCLUSIONtothequestion:Havewegottherightsettlements?

YES=6(14.5%)NO=25(60%)NOTSURE=11(26%)

Ref Shouldweencouragemorehousingofthe‘righttype’inourParish?

1,2,8,12,22 Yes

3 Yesinparticularrentable,affordable,starterhomesandmorebungalowsforagingpopulationtorentorbuy.

4 None

5,16-20,27,

28,33-34,36-

40,42-43

PotentiallymoreaffordablehousingcouldbebuiltinStanningtonVillage–whereitisclosetoservicesandfacilities.Theyshouldnotbeputinareas

thatcontributetotheopennessofthegreenbelt,orwheretheywoulddamagethespecialcharacteristicsofanindividualsettlementsuchas

StanningtonStationRoad.

6 Yeswewouldagreethatencouraginghousingtomeettheobjectivelyassessedneedsoflocalsshouldbeencouraged.WefeelthatStanningtonVillage

wouldbeabetterplaceforthistypeofdevelopmentastheyhavemorefacilitiesandcommunityassetsthatpeoplecanaccessonfoot.Livingon

StanningtonStationRoadreallyrequirestwocarsperhouseholdwhichmaynotbeaffordabletoall.

7 None


October2017

56

9 LackofpublictransportandcommunityinfrastructureonStationRoadmeansthatanyhousingfornewhouseholds/elderly/affordablewouldbe

unsustainable.

10 Noitisnotnecessary.AsyouhavestatedtheCountyCouncilplanhasbeenfulfilled.

11 Onlyifthefacilitiesaretherewhichcouldandwouldmaketheincreaseofpopulationsustainable–whichtheydonot.

13 No–provisionshavebeenmadeatvarioussiteswithina5mileradiusandasshownabovewehavealreadyfulfilledthehousingrequirementafurther

450housesatStobhilland50atNethertonaremorethansufficient.

14 Seeabove

15 Withcareandkeepinganydevelopmentsmallandinrightposition

21 The‘righttype’ofhousingmustensurethatdevelopmentconfirmsto‘Passivhaus’standards.

23 None

24 Ithinkfurtherdevelopmentintheparishisgoingtomaketheareaoverdeveloped,Idobelievepeopleinareawilldisagreebuttheschoolwouldhave

tobeextendedstraightawayhencemoredevelopment.

25 Itdependsonmeaningof‘righttype’verysmallscaleindividualbuildingwouldn’taltertheareacharacter,butwouldbeunaffordabletonewlyforming

households.

26 Why

29 Youngfamiliesorelderlyresidentsiethoserequiring‘affordable’housingwouldalsobethoserequiringthefacilitiesoutlinedinObj2(com.Facilities)

ieinavillage.

Thereisawiderangeofhousingtype(sizeandpricerange)alreadyintheparish.

30 Marketwilldictatetypeofhouse?

31 NotonStationRoad!

Whybuildhousesonabusyroadwithtrafficproblems?


October2017

57

No–CertainlynotonStationRoadasitissounsuitable.

32 PerhapsaffordablehousesinareaslikeStanningtonVillagebutnoonopencountrysidewheremorehousingimpactsthecharacteristicsofthearefor

whichreasonpeoplechoosetolivethere.Morehousingwillalsoincreasetheexistingrisktosafetyandcongestionaroundthelevel-crossing.

35 Thoseyouhavelistedabove.

41 No–theinfrastructureisatthelimit.Provisonforbungalowsratherthan

1/2bedroomflats.

CONCLUSIONS:SUPPORT6(14%)DON'TSUPPORT6(14%)PARTIALLYSUPPORT/UNCLEAR:31(72%)

Summary:Supportformoreaffordablehousing,housingfortheelderly/bungalowsinStanningtonVillage

Objective2:CommunityFacilities:Toidentifyandprotectcurrentcommunityassets,andidentifyfutureprovisionofcommunityassetswithintheParish.


1-9,11-12,15-20,

22,24-28,31-34,

36-43

Yes

10 Proposal1Yes

Proposal2Yes

Proposal3Why?

Proposal4Yes

Proposal5Ishisnecessary?

13 No


October2017

58

14 Yes–BUT:apharmacywouldbegoodbutnothinglikeasimportantasavillageshopsellingthebasics.

21 None

23 Mostlyagree.Dowereallyneedtoexpandtheschool?Wedon’thavepersonalknowledgeoftheschoolbutfromtalkingtoneighbourswho

havefirstschoolagechildrenweunderstandalargenumberofpupilstravelfromoutsidetheparish/catchmentarea.Whataboutanewschool

atStMary’s?.Whydidthevillageshopcloseinthefirstplace?Couldacombinedpostoffice,shop,pharmacybeconsidered?Wehave2very

goodfarmshopscloseby.

29 Withreservations

30 Yes,certainlypotentialformixeduse.

35 No

CONCLUSION-SUPPORT37(86%)DON'TSUPPORT2(4.5%)NOTSURE/UNCLEAR:4(9.5%)

Ref Objective2:Doyouhaveotherideas?

1-

3,7,8,10,12,15,22,

26,29-31,35

None

4 Wedefinitelyneedacommunityshop

5,16-20,27,28,

33-34,36-40,42-

43

IbelievethefarmshopinStanningtonStationshouldbeprotectedasacommunityasset.

6 ThereisnomentionofanyproposalsthatrelatetocommunityfacilitiesinStanningtonStation.IftheFarmShophasbeenidentifiedasoneof

ourcommunityassetsthenwethinkitshouldbesafeguarded.

9 TheFarmShoponStationRoadshouldbecomeaprotectedcommunityassets–othercafeatNurseryrecentlyclosed.


October2017

59

11 Untilmorefacilitiesarebuiltandfacilitieswhicharealreadythereatpresentareutilisedproperlythennoplanningofhousingshouldbe

approved.

13 TheassetswehavearenotindangerandwehavefacilitiesinMorpeth.

14 Seeabove

21 TheFarmShoponStationRdisanimportantcommunityassetalthoughavillageshopinStanningtonwouldbegood.

23 ??Seepostitnote

24 Ithinkinsteadofexpandingplayareasetcmaybeimprovewhatwehaveieroad,footpathsleadingtothecommunityareas.

25 MoorHouseFarmshopisanassettothearea.

32 Peraboveproposalse.g.safetrafficfreeareasforchildrentocongregateandplay.

41 ChildrensplayareaneededatStMary’s.Smallshop/pharmacyonsite.

CONCLUSION:FarmshopinStanningtonStationtobeacommunityasset(46.5%)

Children'splayareasneeded,aswellasshop,alsosupportforpharmacy/shopinStanningtonvillage


October2017

60

Ref WhatdoyouthinkarethemaincommunityassetsintheParish?

1 TheSchool/TheRidleyArms/Garage/VillageHall

2,4,10,14,21,32,

41

None

3 School,RidleyArms,Church

5,7,16-20,27-28,

33-34,36-40,42-

43

Thoseyouhavelistedabove.

6 ThoseyouhavelistedaboveinStanningtonVillageandtheFarmShopinStanningtonStation.WedonotthinktheIndianrestaurantand

petrolstationwouldbeclassedascommunityassetsastheyarenotafocusforcommunitycongregationorprovidingasenseofplace.

7 Aslistedabove.

8 Church,school,villagehall.

9 ThoselistedaboveandtheMoorFarmShop.

11 DonotknowofmanyasresidentsofStationRoadarekeptinthedarkwithregardstoevents.

12 Villagehall,school,postoffice,church,RidleyArmsandthepeople.

13 Opencountryside

15 Church,school,villagehall,pub.

22 Church,school,pub,playingfields.

23 ??Seepostit

24 Thetwogarages,farmshop,church,school,postoffice.

25 Asoutlineabove.Nomentionismadeofthevillagehall:Adistinctfocusforcommunityevents.


October2017

61

26 Thevillagehall.Healthcarewouldbeanassettoyoungfamiliesmovingtothevillage.

29 Allthefacilities/assetsoutlineabovearevalidaspirations.NBallarecentredonStanningtonVillagewhichseemsappropriate.

30 Newschoolinsaferlocationwithbiggercapacity.

31 School,church,villagehall,pub,safeareasforchildrentomeetandplay–allinthevillagewheretherearenotrafficissues–iesafeplacefor

children!

35 NoIdonotbelieveStationRoadissustainable.Wedonothaveagoodbusservice,thefarmshopisexpensiveforfamilyshoppingandisonly

usedbyresidentsinfrequently.Weonlyhavesmallemploymentopportunities.

CONCLUSION:Supportforvariouscommunityassets-thoselistedinthequestionnaire,plusMoorHousefarmshop,villagehallandplayareas.

Ref Whatothercommunityfacilitiesdoweneed?

1 Wearequitehappywiththecurrentfacilities

2,5,7,10-11,

16-22,

28,30,32-34,

36

None

3 Communitybusdrivenbyvolunteerstotakethenon-driverstoMorpethshopping,doctors,dentist.

4 ESSENTIALASHOPwherepeoplecanmeetandspeaktoeachother–whichwouldhopefullyincludeapharmacy,papers,milk,bread,biscuitsand

generalgoods.


October2017

62

6 Iagreethatafarmshop/shopinthevillagewouldbegood.ThereisthepotentialtoturntheA1Dinerintoacommunityassetforalltheparish–but

I’mnotsurewhatthiswouldbeasitissoclosetotheA1anddifficultforusalltoaccessbyfoot/cyclelanes.Itwouldbelovelytohavesomewhere

additionaltowalkdogs,childrenwithouttravelbycar.

8 Skateboardpark

9 BetweenStationRoadandStanningtonthereareallthefacilitiesneeded–ifStanningtonresidentswanttousethem.

12 Busservicewhichrunsintotheevenings.Cyclestorageforcyclessothatoutlyingcommunitiescancycletothevillagetocatchabus.

13 Abusservice

14 Seeabove(pharmacy/villageshop)

15 Certainlyashopofsomesort

23 ??Seepostitnote

24 Ifeelthereisenoughfacilitieshereformyselfandhusbandmoreparketcjustattractmorepeoplefromouttheareawhichcouldleadtovandalismetc

25 Thismightnotberelevanthere–buttherearenobusshelters,betweenHepscottParkandNethertonPark.

26 CostaCoffeeshopwouldbegood.

27 Aprovisions/foodshoplocatedattheoldA1Diner.Thiswouldimprovetheareaoftheeyesorethathasexistingatthissiteformanyyears.

29 Schoolcapacitycouldbecomeanissueifalargeamountofhousebuildingwasallowedintheparish.Shouldcatchmentareasbeaffectedandneed

redefiningthisisunlikelytobepopular.

31 Avillageshopinthevillage(StanningtonVillage)

35 Moreaffordablehousingcouldbebuiltinthevillage–closetoschoolsandotherfacilitieswithlesstraffic.Notinareasthatcontributetothe

opennessofthegreenbeltandnotdamagethecharacterofanindividualsettlementlikeStationRoadStannington.

37 NoneonStationRoad

41 Asabove(childrensplayareaatStMary’s.Smallshop/pharmacyonsite)


October2017

63

CONCLUSIONS:Children'splayarea(atStMary's)Smallshop/pharmacyatSt.Mary'sandStannington,transportprovision/busshelters


October2017

64

Objective3:NaturalEnvironment:Ensurethecountryside/landscapesintheParishtoretainthe‘rural’feelofthearea,whilstrecognisingthatthecountrysideisaliving,working,place.


2-4,8,12,14-

16,22,24,25,

27,31,34,40,

42

Yes

3 Yesweagreewiththisobjective

5 Yes/No

6 Yes–butIthinkitisimportanttomaintaintheagriculturaluseofmostoftheparishandnotletitbedevelopedforhousing.Wethinkthata

landscapecorridorforStanningtonStationRoadisnotadequateasitisstillremovingtheopengreenfieldsthatareaspecialcharacterofour

area.

7 Inpart

9 Yes–providingthereistherightbalance

10 Yesbutwhowilldecidewhichlandscapesarespecial?Andwhicharenot!

11 Yes,buttheplansforhousingandgreeninsetboundarygoesagainsttheaboveobjective.

13,33,39 No

17-20,35-38 Noanswer

21 MorehousingalongStationRoadwillnotprotectthecharacterofthearea.

23 Yes,stronglyagree.Webelievetheruralfeelwouldbelostifthevillageandlocalsettlementsweretoexpand.Eventheprovisionofopenspaces

withinthenewdevelopmentswouldn’tnecessarilyhelpretainthisaspect.

26 Yes.BirdsandwildlifeareofutmostimportancetotheresidentsonStationRoad.


October2017

65

28,43 Yes/No

29 Agreewiththeobjective.Proposalsneedfurtherthought.

30 Yesaslongasitisrecognisedthat“countryside”isalsoaworkplaceasasfarmingchangesthenthelandscapewillchangewithit.Don’thave

restrictionsthatrestrictlocalfarmsandbusinessesfromchanginginfaceoffuturechallenges.

32 Inprincipleyes,howeverthespecialopencountrysidecharacterofStationRdwouldbeirrevocablydamagedifhousingweretoreplaceopen

fieldswithintheproposedboundary.

41 Yes,butcouncilneedstokeepaclosereyeonbuilderstoensurethishappens.

CONCLUSION

SUPPORT27(63%)DONOTSUPPORT3(7%)UNCLEAR13(30%)


October2017

66

Ref Doyouhaveanyotherideas?

1-2,4,12,14-

15,21-23,26,

30,32

None

3 Enhancedaccesstotheenvironmentieimprovedfootpathsforsaferenjoymentoftheenvironment.

5,16-20,28,

33-40,42-43

Iamconcernedthatremovingagriculturalfieldsforhousingdevelopmentandreplacingthemwithalandscapecorridorwillnotprotectthe

specialcharacterofStanningtonStationRoad.

6 Protecttheagricultural/smallholdinguseoffieldsonStanningtonStationfromnewdevelopment.Creationofopenspacesforcommunityuseon

StanningtonStationRoadwillbedifficultwithoutaddressingthepoorpavements,lackofpedestriancrossings,thespeedandvolumeoftraffic.

Withoutthistheyoungandelderlyresidentswillnotbeabletosafelyaccess.

7 StanningtonvillageisslightlymoredevelopedthanthesmallercommunitiesintheParishandperhapshasgreaterneedtoconsidersomeofthe

problemswildlifefaceandtrytoprovideforit.Thesmallercommunities,StationRoad,forexample,arealreadyinopencountryand

accommodateaverywiderangeofwildlife.Onedangeristhatiftoomuchdevelopmentispermittedintooshortatimescalewildlifegenerally

andthemovevulnerableinparticulardonothavesufficienttimetoadapt.

Everydevelopmenthasanimpactonwildlife–themorewildlifethegreatertheimpact.

8 Treeplantinginareaswherehousingdevelopmentsare.

9 StationRoadisnotjustrural–itisintheopencountrysidesurroundedbyfarmland.Itisnotadestinationbuta‘through’roadfortraffic.To

retainthisfeelitisimportantthatthisisrecognisedforStationRoad,inordertoretainitsuniquecharacter.

ThereshouldbeNOparalleldevelopmentonStationRoad(iehousesbuildbehindhouses)

10 StationRoadcouldloseouthere,asitseemstherearenoconcernsaboutkeepingour“rural”feel,onlyabouthowmanyhousescanbecrammed

intoeachsite,bringingextratraffic,fumes,noiseetc.

11 NCChasaprospectusonwildlifeandwildlifecorridorsandtheproposalsforStationRoadwilllosealotofthewildlifeweenjoybecauseofthe

scopetoallowpeopletobuildon.


October2017

67

13 Asaresidentwholikesthe‘ruralfeel’andbeingclosetothecountryside,Iwantittoremainassuchanddonotwantnewdevelopmentwhichwill

spoilthearea.

24 Theproposalsonhereareverymuchopentothepointthatoneitissayingidentifywhatlandscapearespecialaren’tallthelandscapesspecial

theyhouseourwildlifeintheareaandfurtherdevelopmentonthereisgoingtotakeawaythatandgoodlucktoanyonewhocantellwildlife

thereacorridortheycanenterinthat’sjuststupid.

25 Mostresidents,Ibelieve,choosetoliveintheareabecauseofitsopenruralcharacter.Therecanbeconflictbetweenheavilymerchandised

agricultureandaccessforenjoymentofpublicfootpathsandrightsofway.Alsosafewalkingonroadsidepathsisdiscouragedbyincreasingly

heavy,speedytraffic.

27 Iamconcernedthatremovingagriculturalfieldsforhousingdevelopmentandreplacingthemwithalandscapecorridorwillnotprotectthe

specialcharacterofStanningtonStationRoad.

Thespecialruralcharactershouldbevaluedananyactionwhichwouldinterferewiththisshouldberejected.

29 Weareveryprivilegedtohaveawidevariationofhabitat,floraandfaunainourparishandmustdoeverythingpossibletoprotectthisby

preservingthegreenbelt.

IassumeBlagdonEstisidentifiedasspecialbecauseoftheRedSquirrels.Theagriculturallandscapeisequallyimportantasisthepreservationof

hedgerows,treesetc.

Anyecologicaldisturbancecausedbydevelopmentequateswithlossandtakesyearstorecover.

31 TheproposedinsetboundaryforStationRoaddoesnotrecognisethisvision.Quitetheopposite.StationRoadisimportantinretainingtherural

feelofthearea.Buildingthisvolumeofnewhomesisunnecessaryandwilldestroytheruralfeel.Itistheopenspacesbetweenthehousesthat

createstheruralfeel!Whybrickthemup.Wearestuckwiththefumesfromlongqueuesoftrafficatthecrossing–whybuilduptheareaand

createmoretrafficandfumesforfuturegenerations.

TheproposedboundaryforStanningtonStationwilldestroytheruralfeelofthearea.StationRoadhasalwaysbeenaruralroadthepeoplewho

choosetoliveheredidsobecausetheydidnotwanttoliveinavillage.

Thosewhowishtodevelopareonlydoingitformonetaryreasons,tothedetrimentofalltheotherresidentsandtheirchosenwayoflife.

41 Doglitterbinsthroughoutestate.


October2017

68

Conclusions:Tomaintainthe'rural'and'agricultural'feelofStanningtonStation,doglitter,accesstocountryside/footpaths/pavements,landscapinginnew

development


October2017

69

Objective4:Wildlife:ProtectandenhancehabitatsforlocallyimportantbiodiversityintheParish

Ref Doyouagreewiththisobjective

1,2,4-7,8-10,12,

14-20,22,25-29,

31-43

Yes

2 Yesweagreewiththisobjective

3,7 None

11 Howcanyouoffsetanylossofbiodiversitythathasbeendeveloped?Ifyoubuildonlandthathaswildlifeon,thenthatwildlifewillnolonger

betheretobeenjoyedbypeoplelivingwithinthevicinity.Theonlywaywildlifecorridorscouldbeprotectedistoleavethemastheyare.

13 Notbynewdevelopment.

21 IcannotseehowfurtherdevelopmentalongStationRoadsupportsthenotionofensuringbiodiversity.

23 Yes,stronglyagree.

24 Yesthisobjectiveisveryimportant

30 Generally,althoughIfeeltheactualamountofbiodiversityalreadyhereisprobablyunderestimated.

CONCLUSION:AGREE:38(89%)DISAGREE(0)NOTSURE/NOTCLEAR5(11%)


October2017

70

Ref Doyouhaveotherideas?

1-4 None

5,16-20,27,28,

36-40,42,43

Keeptheagriculturalfields&residentialgardensofStanningtonStationfreeofdevelopment.Theyareahavenforlotsofwildlifesuchasbats,

barnowls,deers,newts,sparrowhawks,hedgehogsandfoxes.

6 AllowinglineardevelopmentalongStanningtonStationRoadislikelytoleadtohabitatfragmentation.TheA1&EastCoastmainline&River

Blythalreadycreatestrongboundariestowildlifemovement.IfwildlifecanthennotmoveNorthorSouthacrossStanningtonStationRoadwe

arecreatingpocketsthatmaynotbeabletosustainthecurrentpopulationsofwildlifeinthisareaoftheparish.

7 Seeprevious

8,11,12,14-15,

21-23,30,33,

34,41

None

9 Anydevelopment(anditisnotacceptedthisisneeded)shouldbesmallscaletoavoidimpactingonthewealthofwildlifeinthisruralarea.All

ofthecountrysidecanbeseenfromStationRoad–bats,birds,birdsofprey(sparrowhawk,kestrel,buzzard,tawnyowl),rabbits,hedgehogs,

deer–allofwhichshouldbetreasured,protectedandnotbuiltover!

10 StanningtonStationcouldalsobearedsquirrelconservationarea,aswehavehadthemonMoorFarminthepast.

13 Encouragewildlifebyleavingtheareaasopencountryside.

24 YesstopthedevelopmentofStationRoad

25 Protectingandenhancingexistingwildlifecorridorsmaywellbeachievedbynot‘fillingin’vacantspaceswithhousing–assomepeople

proposeforStationRoad.Hedges,woodlands,mixedfarms,largegardensandfieldswithlargeheadlandsmightwellenhancediversityof

wildlife(aswellasponds....whichwedon’tseemtohave)

26 Thisyearinmygarden.Familyofpheasants,partridges,collareddovewoodpigeon,moorhen,blackbirds,robins,goldfinches,greenfinches,

sparrows,bluetits,greattits,coaltits,hedgehogs,fox,sparrawhawk,kestrel.PerhapsbecauseIfeedthemeachday.

29 ThislinkscloselywithObj3/noenvironment)andthesamepointsapply.


October2017

71

ManyofthebirdsandmammalsseenregularlyinStationRoadareonNorthumberlandWildlifeTrustRedList(iethreatened)examplesare

barnowls,treesparrowsandhedgehogs.Thehabitatfortheseandalltheotherplantsandcreatureswhichcontributetothebiodiversityof

theparishneedstobeprotected.

31 BuildinguptherurallandonStationRoadwithhousingwilldestroythehabitatforwildlifeandbiodiversity.

LargehousingdevelopmentonruralStationRoadwillbedetrimentaltothisobjective.

32 HousingdevelopmentonStationRdwilladverselyimpactthewildlifehabitatsofmanyformsofwildlifesuchasowls,hawks,buzzardsand

someprotectspeciesofbatsandnewts.

35 KeepthefieldsandgardenshedgerowsofStationRoadStanningtonfreeofdevelopments.

Wherewehavehavenforlotsofwildlifesuchasbats,barnowls,deer,newts,sparrowhawks,hedgehogs,redsquirrels,foxesandwhere

peoplecankeephorses,hens,duckswithoutcomplaints.


October2017

72

Objective5:LocalEconomy:Provideapositiveframeworkforlocalbusiness,agriculture,ruralenterprise(includingtourism)andlocalemployment.

Ref DoyouagreewiththesePolicyareasandProposals?

1,3,4,8,10-

12,14-15,

22,41

Yes

2,21 None

5,16,18-20,

33-40,42-43

Yesbutnotattheexpenseofthegreenbelt

7 Businessesinruralareasareveryoftenagriculture,transportorinternetbased.Itshouldbenaturalforlocalauthoritiestowanttosupportand

developlocalbusinesswithinthecontextofawiderdevelopmentstrategyforthecountybutindoingsotheneedsanddesiresoftheresident

populationshouldberecognisedandsensitivelyrespondedto.

Stanningtonisnotyetanattraction,whichinitsownrightcanbeadvertisedasaholidayvenue.Thesignagewhichisbeingaskedforseemstobe

inplaceformostofwhatthereistovisitintheparish.Perhapsthereisaneedforsomecommitteeorothertoconsiderjustwhatamainly

commutervillagecanprovideorattracttoboosttheeconomy,provideappropriateaccommodationandjobs.

9 Onlyaslongasitisrecognisedthatdevelopmentofthistypecanandwillbelimitedduetotheruralnatureoftheparish.

13 Inpart,wherethereisanactualandnotmerelyaperceivedneed.

17 Yesbutnotattheexpenseofthegreenbelt.Theemphasisshouldbe“smallbusinesses”.

23 Yes,stronglyagree.

24 No.Infairnessthebusinessesknowwhentheyopenedwhatareatheywereopeningin,itisuptothebusinessestoencouragenewcustomer’sby

havingauniquesellingmethod.MaybetheyshouldemployVisionStatements.AsforbroadbandonStationRoadduetothetreewewillnever

havebrilliantspeed.

25 Yes.Internet&telecomsincreasinglyimportantbuttransportlinksneedmaintainingandimproving.


October2017

73

26 Yesbutonlyinkeepingwithotherplansongoing.

27-28 Yesbutnotattheexpenseofthegreenbelt

29 Broadly–butanyexpansionmustbeacceptabletobusinessandnonbusinesspeoplealike.

30 Broadbandissuesstartingtobeaddressed.Inset’sessentialforbusinessgrowth,includingfarmswherediversificationwillbecomemoreimportant

incomingyearsandmayrequireestablishmentofactivitiesawayfrommainsteading.

31 Yes.Noissueswithagriculturalbusinessinthecountrysidebuildinghouseswillnotbringbusinesses(otherthanthelikesofwindowcleaners)

Iaminfavourofagriculturalbusinessinthecountryside.

32 Yesaslongasthereisminimalimpactongreenbeltandthespecialcharacteristicsoftheopencountryside.

CONCLUSION

AGREE15(35%)DISAGREE:1(2.5%)UNCLEAR27(63%)(Mostofthesedidagree,butwantedtoensurethegreenbeltremainedprotected)

Ref Havewemissedanything?

1 No

2 ImprovesignagetoNorthumberlandCheeseCompany.Wedesperatelyneedsuperfastbroadband,alsoovernightstaytourismwouldbenefitfrom

thistoo.

3-5,7-8,

10,12-24,

26-28,30,

32-34,42,

43

None

6 TheNorthEastRuralGrowthNetworkmanagedbyRayBrowningatNorthumberlandCountyCouncilmaywellbeabletosupportnewbusinessstart

upsandgrowthofexistingbusinesses.


October2017

74

9 Anyexpansionshouldnotbeattheexpenseofthegreenbelt

11 Internetpromotionandawarenessaboutparishbusiness

25 WorkwiththehighwaysauthoritytoensurethatEast-WestaccessismaintainedonsmallerroadsdespitethedominanceofheavytrafficonNorth-

SouthA1ieDovecoteLane–sliproad?Cliftonjunction–NoA1northwardaccess.Shotton–E-Wlanedowngradedtofootpath,thendiverted

(forever?)byopencasting.WhynolinkfromGreatNorthRoadatCountyHall,MorpethEasttoA192atStobhillroundabout–anempty‘corridor’

exists...

29 Signageisimportantfromasafetyperspectiveaswellascrucialtoenterprisebutcanbeintrusiveinaruralareaifnotappropriate.

31 Yes.ThereisaverybusyrailwaycrossingonStationRoad.StationRoadisaverybusyroadwitha40mphlimit.Manydriversexceedthatlimit

especiallynearthecrossing.Thepavementsarepoor,streetlightingispoor.Nocrossingwheresinglepavementswapssidesatlevelcrossing.

StationRoadisnotasaferoadforchildren,pedestriansorcyclists–particularlyondarkwinterevenings.Notgoodforresidents,businessortourism.

StationRoadisamainlinkroadtotheA1withheavytrafficandspeedingproblemsparticularlyatthelevelcrossing.TheStobhilldevelopmentwill

addconsiderablytothetrafficproblems.

Buildingmorehousesonsuchabusyroadforpurelymonetaryreasonscannotbejustified.

41 TheunitsatStMaryParkstillremainempty.


October2017

75

Objective6:TrafficandTransport:ReducethedetrimentaleffectthattraffichasonresidentsandbusinessesintheParish,whilstseekingimprovementstolocalnetworks,non-trafficnetworksandpublictransportprovision.


1-2,4-5,8-9,

16,18-20,22,

24-29,32-40,

42-43

Yes

3 Wedoagreeemphaticallywiththisobjectivebutpuzzledbytheproposal4asthevillageisallreadybypassed.

6 Yesbutwethinkthereshouldbemoreproposals.

7 SettlementswithintheParishshouldberecognisedfortheirindividualitybutalsofortheirconnectednessbecausetheyarepartoftheParish.

AbypassforStanningtonwouldrouteevenmorepotentialfootfallawayfromwhereatleastsomeofitiswanted.

Visitorswillcometotheparishtovisitiftherearecyclestracksroutedawayfrombypassesandotherbusyroads;ifthereareplacesoffering

ruralactivities,evenassimpleaswalking,whichareclearlysignpostedfromanaccommodationcentre;iftherearethingstodoandgotoby

bus–orevenrail.JustthinkwhataStanningtonRoadplatformwoulddofortraveltoandfromNewcastlevia‘railbus’.

10 Intheory

11 Partly

12 Yes.However,sincethesurveythebusservicehasgotsignificantlyworse.Asthebusservicedegeneratessolesspeopleuseitandsoitwill

dwindleevenmore.

13 No,noneoftheabovearefeasible.Againthefocusisondevelopmentandnotonhelpingthecurrentresidents.

14 Yes–BUT:ThevillageisalreadybypassedbytheA1.Furthertrafficrestrictionscouldkilloratleastlimitdevelopmentplans.

15 Yes–aslongasanyproposedby-passdoesnotcutusoff.


October2017

76

17 No

21 None

23 Agree(seepreviousopinionsre:newdevelopments)

30 Yes,identificationofpotentialfordevelopmentshouldbelimitedtoroadaccessetctolimitimpactonminorcountryroads.

31 No.TheParishCouncilhavebeenraisingtheissueoftrafficandspeedingonStationRoadforyears.Itisgettingworseandwillgetmuch

worsewiththeStobhilldevelopment.

StationRoadistoonarrowtoaccommodategoodpedestrianandcyclepaths.ItisamainlinkroadtotheA1withtrafficexceedingthe40mph

limitmakingitdangerousforpedestriansandcyclists.

41 No.PublictransporttoStMarysverypoorroadseffectallcyclistandmotorists.

SUMMARY:AGREE35(81%)DON'TAGREE4(9.5%)NOTCLEAR:4(9.5%)


October2017

77

Ref Doyouhaveanyotherideas?

1-2,4 None

3 TobeabletorequestthebuseswhichgobetweenNewcastleandMorpethalongA1todropofforpickupatvariouspointsienearroundaboutsin

andoutofvillage,topofStationRoadandorthroughvillageitself.

5,16,18-

20,28,33,

34-36,38-

40,42-43

WewanttoseeproposalsforreducingtrafficonStanningtonStationRoad,notproposalsforabypassforStanningtonVillageandmorehousing

developmentforus,whichwecannotsupportwithcurrentinfrastructure.

WewanttosupportalinkroadbetweenStobhill–LoansdeanandforafourwayjunctionatCliftonorWhaltonRoadtohelpdiverttrafficawayfrom


6 WewouldliketoseeproposalstoreducetrafficonStanningtonStationRoad,notjustaddressthespeed.MorpethNeighbourhoodPlanhasa

communityactionpointforalinkroadbetweenStobhill-LoansdeanandafourwayjunctionatCliftonorWhaltonRoadontotheA1.Wethinkthatif

ourNeighbourhoodPlansupportedthisitwouldsignificantlyhelpreducethetrafficvolumeonStanningtonStationRoad.

7,13-14 None

8 Standardsoffootpathsbekeptupandnotlefttogointorutsandpotholes.

9 Yes–someproposalsforStationRoadnotjustStannington.

AlinkroadbetweenStobhillandLoansdeanandafourwayjunctionatClifton/WhaltonRoadtohelpdirecttrafficawayfromStationRoad.

RegulardeploymentofspeedawarenesscameraonStationRoad.

10 But...StationRoad,havingbeenvotedthemostdangerousparishandthisisabouttobeaddedtowhenthedevelopmentatStobhilliscompleted,

whataretheplanstoensureoursafetyhere?Whatimprovementsarelikelytobemade?Andwhen?

11 ScraptheplanningorproposalsforbuildingonStationRoad.In2009asurveyidentified6500carsandvehiclesusedStationRoadeveryday.That

wouldhaveincreasednowandwillincreaseasnewdevelopmentsinStobhillandBedlingtonhavebeenapprovedandStationRoadwillbeusedasa

thoroughfare.

*MakeStnRoada30mphzone*


October2017

78

12 AskArrivatore-directMorpeth-NewcastleandNewcastle–Morpethbusesintothevillageoratleastdowntotheroundabouts.

15 Busserviceapriorityotherwiseitwillbewithdrawn.

17 WewanttoseeproposalsforreducingtrafficonStanningtonStationRoad,notproposalsforabypassforStanningtonVillageandmorehousing




Iwantbetterpublictransport.Idonotwantspeedrestrictionstheyarenotneededandseenoreasonforabypassletsnotforgetitusedtobethe

‘”A1”

21 ReducetrafficonStationRoad.

Betterbusservice.

22,41 None

23 Asregularbusservicehasnowbeenremovedwouldacommunitydial-a-ridebefeasible?Ibelievethisworksinotherruralareas.

Wedon’tbelievethevolumeoftrafficthroughStanningtonVillagewarrantssfurtherby-pass.WealreadyhavetheA1.Moneywouldbebetter

spentimprovingthequalityoftheexistinginfrastructure.Theintroductionofadequatespeedreductionmeasureswould,inthemselvesleadto

betterpedestrian/cyclefacilities.

24 MythoughtsisonStationRoadaroundaboutatthetopandbottomwouldeasethetravelling.Theroadverybusyandfurtherentrancesontheroad

wouldcausemoreproblems.

25 SomeaspectsofthisobjectivehavebeenalreadybeentouchedonearlierObj5.

OnStationRoad,publictransport1hourlyN&S(&sometimesnotatall)andnobusshelters=useyourwoncar.

BypassforStanningtonVillage?Really?GreatNorthRoadusedtogopasttheRidleyArms,andnow,whatsthat4lanedualcarriagewaythats(A1)so

busy–ifnotabypass....I’mclearlymissingsomething.


October2017

79

EffectivespeedmanagementisneededonStationRoad–itisastraight(fast)busylinkbetween2Aclassroadswithhousesandpavementrightnext

toheavylorries.Peoplewithprams,horseriders,&disabledpeopleonmobilityscootersusethesepaths,oh,&you&me.

26 WehavecurrentproblemswithtrafficonStationRoad,whatweneedishelptoreducenumbersofvehiclesusingtheroad.





IwonderifconvertingStationRoadintoaone-wayroadwouldbeanimprovementforthearea?

29 Anynewdevelopmentwillincreasetraffic.Anyincreaseisdetrimental.Therearealreadysafetyissuesinsomeareasiespeed,junctionsetcNew

developmentwillneedaccesspointsandincreasethehazards.

ResidentswouldwelcomeanewlinkroadbetweenStobhillandLoansdeanandanewjunctionategCliftonasthisshouldalleviatethevolumeof

trafficonStationRoadwhichisanongoingconcern.

SurelyStanningtonVillageisalreadyby-passed.

30 Publictransport–“nicetohave”butistherearealneed?

31 StationRoadisamainlinkroadtotheA1–manyresidentsuseittocommutetowork.

Whybuildmorehousesonthisroadmakingthetrafficproblemsworse?

StationRoadisthelastplaceweshouldbebuildingmorehouses.

ResidentsoftheParishthatusetheroadtocommutedonotwantholdupstooandfromwork.

Whychokeitup–whenweallneedtocommute.

NomorehousingdevelopmentonStationRoad.

32 SpecificfocusisrequiredonStationRoadtoimproveroadsafetyandcongestion.TheA1roadby-passesStanningtonVillagealthoughtrafficmay

wellincreaseduetoStMarysdevelopment.AsitstandsStationRdisamaincommutingthoroughfareforStobhill,Hepscott,Bedlington,Nederton,


October2017

80

HepscottParketc.Additionallyithasabusymain-linelevelcrossing(over100trains/day).TheParishCouncilcontinuallyhighlightconcerns

regardingtrafficsafety,speedandcongestiononStationRoad.Weneedaninfrastructurethatreducestrafficandimprovessafetyontheroad.





Inorderto“reducethedetrimentaleffectthattraffichasonresidents....”wecannotallowanincreaseoftrafficonStanningtonStationbyincreasing

thepopulation.Especiallybybuildingneartotherailwaycrossing.Thecrossingsarepotentiallyhazardouswiththecurrentnumberofvehiclesusing

theroad.


October2017

81

Objective7:DesignandCharacter:EnsureeachsettlementintheParishmaintainsitsidentity,witharecognitioninthePlanofthedifferencesbetweenthesettlements,andensurethatsettlementshavetheinfrastructureneededtoaccommodatedevelopmentsproposed.

Ref DoyouagreewiththisobjectiveandthePolicyAreassuggested?

1-2,4,8,

12,14,15,

22,41

Yes

3 Yesweagreewiththeobjectiveandpolicyareas.

5 Usebrownfieldfirst.Wemustensuretheyarebrownfield.Notlandownersjustclaimingitonsomeweakpremise.

6 Yes–butsomepointshavebeenmissed.NewdevelopmentonStationRoadwillnothelpprotectthecharacteroftheareawhichisanopen

dispersedsettlement.

WedonotagreethatStanningtonStationRoadhastherightinfrastructurefornewhousingdevelopment.Wehaveissueswithsewerflooding,

telephoneandbroadbandconnections,andtrafficcongestion.Numerousaccesspointsisgoingtocreateproblemsforexistingresidents.

7 ThemainmessageoftheSPNPisoneofdesignandcharacter.Formeoneofthemainissueshastodowithinstrumentsofauthoritywithinthe

ParishwhichwillENSUREobjectivesaremet.

Whichimpartialbodywill“Ensurewemaximisetheuseofourbrownfieldsites...”andhelpstopothersbeingcreated?

Whichimpartialbodywill“EnsurethatnewdevelopmentintheParishrespectsthecharacterofindividualsettlements.”?

.....andsoon.

9 Yes–howeverpolicydocumentshavesuggestedthatStationRoadismoresuitablefordevelopmentthisisnotthecaseandiscontrarytotheabove

objective.

10 No

11 Partly.Ihaveunderlinedabovetheimportantpartofwhatisneeded–infrastructureisneededinthesesettlementstomakeit*sustainable*before

anydevelopmentisproposed.


October2017

82

12 Yes

13 Nobecauseyetagainthefocusisondevelopmentinanareawhichhasnoneedforit.Sofarplanningapplicationssubmittedwilldestroythe

characteroftheroad.

16-20,

27,28,33-

40,42,43

Yes–butStanningtonStationRoaddoesnothavetheinfrastructuretoaccommodatenewhousingdevelopment.Thespecialcharacterofthisareais

theopennessandspaceandagricultural/smallholdinglanduse.Thiscannotbereplicatedsimplywithalandscapecorridoralongthefrontofany

newdevelopment.

21 None

23 Mostlyagree.Seepreviousopinionsregardingnewdevelopments.Additionalbuildinginsmallervillagesandsettlementsequalslossofidentityin

thelongrun.

24 Yes,Idon’twantfurtherdevelopmentontheroad.

25 Yes.Point1proposalabove:StationRoad–uniquecharacterresultsfrom“MoorFarmEstate”smallholdingseparatelyspacedwith13acresofland

each.Infillofresidentialdevelopmentwilldestroythat.

Point3proposalabove:MAXIMISEuseofbrownfieldsitemightresultinA1dinersitebecomingatowerblock.OPTIMISEmaygainacceptancefrom

mostpeopleformodestdevelopment–butIaccept:usebrownfielddefinitelybeforebulldozingopencountry.

26 IamsureyoumayfeeltheneedfordevelopingonStationRoad,Iamsurelikemyselfpeoplemovedherefortheopenspacesandcountryside.

29 Yes.ItisvitaltoretainthecharacterofStanningtonParish.

30 Agreewithabove(ensurethatwemaximisetheuseofourbrownfieldsitesintheParish).Notsurewhatisreallymeantbytheindividual

identity/characterofvillages?

31 No.Destroyingaruralroadbytransformingitintoahousingestatewithnofacilitiesfortheresidentsdoesnotmakeanysensetome.Especiallyas

theroadissobusywithspeedingissuesthatwillmakeitdangerousforchildrentoplay.

IfeelStationRoadshouldmaintainitsidentityasaruralcountryroadandnotbetransformedintoahousingestate.


October2017

83

32 Yes,agreewiththeobjective,butfurtherhousingdevelopmentonStationRdcompletelycontravenesthestatedobjective/proposal.The

infrastructureinStationRdisclearlynotconducivetofurtherhousingdevelopment.Thespecialcharacteristicsoftheopencountrysidewouldbe

destroyed.Itisclearlynotsustainableduetotheverylimitedfacilitiesthatexist.

RESULTS

SUPPORT:32(80%)DONOTSUPPORT:3(7.5%)UNSURE/UNCLEAR:5(12.5%)


October2017

84

Ref Doyouhaveotherideas?

1 No

2-4,6-8,15,16,

18-20,22,26-

28,30,33-43

None

5 KeepStationRdopen,theinfrastructurewouldnotcope.

Theopenagriculturalfieldseithersideoftheroadgivetheroadischaracter.

9 Anydevelopment(againnotagreednecessary)onStationRoadshouldbelinearandnotparalleltoanyexistingdevelopment.

Nohousing‘estates’.

Inkeepingwithgreenbelt.

10 1.StationRoadisuniqueinthatitisonelongroad,notavillageorasettlement.Yetthisnotbeingrespected,bythenumberofhousesbeing

proposed.Theidentitywillbelost.2.No–whodecidesthis?3.No4.NodevelopersintheStanningtonStationArea.

11 StationRoadhaslimitedfacilitiestomakeanyincreaseinhousingandpopulationsustainable.

12 Nomore‘ElizabethSquare’Townhousessetononeofthehighestpointsinthevillage?

13 LeaveusaloneandthespecialcharacterofStationRoadwillberetainedandprotected.

14 Seepages3-8!

17 ProtectStationRoadsuniquecharacter.

21 AllnewhousingmustconfirmtoPassivhausStandards

23 Ifthereisnoalternativethantodevelopthismustbedoneonbrownfieldsites.ThiswillmaintaintheoverallaspectoftheParishasawhole.


October2017

85

24 IwouldrathertheParishlookedatwhatStationRoadhasatpresentandimprovethem.Roadsurface,pathways,lighting,speedcamera’s.

25 IfStationRoadweretobecomeadefined‘settlement’(inmymind)itwouldneedtohavearecognisedpubliccommunityspace,whichcurrently

thereisnovacancyorfinance)?)for.(nochildren'splayspace,ormeetingplace,orbenchinaparkeven)–forthese,wemustlookto

StanningtonVillage,Bedlington,Morpethetcor“developercontributions”?

29 Thecharacterwillonlybemaintainedbyminimisingdevelopment.

Brownfieldsitesmustbeidentifiedasgenuinebrownfieldsites.

31 Buildnewhomesawayfrombusyroadsandtrafficfumes.Somewheresafeforchildren,pedestriansandcyclists.

Somewherewithfacilitieswithinsafewalkingdistance.

Leaveruralroadsasruralroads!

Listentotheresidentsandnotthedevelopers,whocarelittleforourruralsettlementandareonlyoutformonetarygain.

32 Putdevelopmentinsustainableareasthathavefacilitiesforchildrenandthatwillnotdetrimentallyimpactonruralagriculturallandscape.


October2017

86

Othercommentsmade

Ref Comment

5 TheFarmShoponStationRoadshouldbeaprotectedasset.ItisouronlysustainableassetasdefinedbymanyCouncilscountrywide.Nurseryclosed,

GarageandIndianRestaurantdonotprovidedailylivingneeds.

11 IhaveincludedamapoftheproposedinsetboundaryonStationRoad.MayIaskwhyhasmyproperty&landmarkedinpinkonthemapnotbeen

includedinthis?Myneighbourshave,whycouldthisbe?Iwantthisincludedasarepresentationplease.

13 Thiswholequestionnaireisslantedtowardsdevelopment.Whynotleavetheareaaloneandconservethecountrysidearoundus.

28 Iconfirmthatthesearemyviews

43 Iagreewiththeseviews


October2017

87

APPENDIXE:VISIONANDOBJECTIVESCONSULTATIONMATERIAL


October2017

88

!

Vision,'Objectives'and'Policy'Area'Consultation'–'September'2015' 1!

!Stannington(Parish(Council(and(the(Neighbourhood(Plan(Steering(Group(who(are(working(on(the(Neighbourhood(Plan(need(your(feedback.((Since(the(last(community(consultations,(we(have(been(working(hard(to(start(drafting(a(Neighbourhood(Plan(for(the(area.((We(have(listened(to(what(you(have(said,(and(have(come(up(with(a(Vision,(and(7(Objectives(that(we(think(reflect(what(the(community(wanted,(and(which(we(think(we(can(achieve(through(the(Neighbourhood(Plan.((With(each(objective,(we(have(identified(specific(policy(areas,(which(we(think(would(help(achieve(those(objectives.((Information(about(how(we(have(arrived(at(our(proposed(policy(areas(is(contained(in(a(series(of(7(Topic(Papers(which(are(available(on(the(SNDP(website.(((( (((Are(there(things(you(disagree(with?((Are(there(things(we(have(missed?((If(you(don’t(tell(us,(we(won’t(know.(((If(you(have(further(questions,(we(are(having(a(Consultation(Open(Day(on(Monday(21st(September(at(Stannington(Village(Hall(between(2pm(and(7pm.(((This(form(is(also(available(online(on(the(website(www.spnp.co.uk((and(responses(are(requested(by(the(31st(October(2015.((All(responses(should(be(returned(to:((((Parish(Clerk(Stannington(Parish(Council(2(Monmouth(Court(Widdrington(Morpeth,(NE61(5QS(

Stannington(Parish(Neighbourhood(Plan(–(Consultation(–(Summer(2015(

PLEASE(RESPOND(for(the(chance(to(win(a(£25(M&S(voucher!(((


October2017

89


October2017

90


October2017

91


October2017

92


October2017

93


October2017

94


October2017

95


October2017

96


October2017

97


October2017

98

Documents

October 2017 Stannington Parish Council - Northumberland · Stannington Parish Council took the decision to produce a Neighbourhood Plan for the ... • A Coffee Morning presentation