meetings and minutes

DEVELOPMENT OF SITE FOR HOUSING SITE 44, LONGRIDGE,

COULBY NEWHAM


The Director of Regeneration submitted a report that sought approval of development brief MP376 to guide the disposal of Site 44, Longridge, Coulby Newham and its future development for housing.

Site 44, Longridge, Coulby Newham was owned by the Council and was an allocated housing site in the Middlesbrough Local Plan. Site plan MP 376/3 was attached to the submitted report. The Local Plan was the subject of extensive public consultation in 1996 and a Public Local Inquiry held between October 1997 and January 1998. The site was included on the Council’s land disposal programme for 2006/07. Development of the site had been delayed because the site was traversed by the Lackenby to Picton pylon corridor, which had now been removed.

The submitted report advised that a development brief had been prepared to guide the tendering of the site to private sector house builders and copies of the brief were available in the Members’ Resources room. The brief indicated that the site was capable of accommodating approximately 80 houses. Vehicle access would be from the existing access point on Turnberry Way. Proposals for the site must include 12 affordable buildings to include six bungalows suitable for occupation by people over 55 and six, three bedroom houses. The homes would provide a mix of rent and shared ownership.

The terms of the site disposal agreement would require the developer to make the following payments in addition to the bid price: £115,000 towards a new classroom at Lingfield School, £80,000 towards improvements to Marton West Beck Valley Nature Reserve, £100,000 towards a new pedestrian crossing on Stainton Way, £30,000 towards improvements to play facilities at the Pastures estate and £20,000 towards a ten-year maintenance plan for the proposed improvements to the Marton West Beck Valley Nature Reserve and the play area at the Pastures estate.

It was noted that as a result of consultation, Marton West Community Council had objected to the principle of housing on the site. Letters of objection and a petition had been received from residents. The main concerns were contained within the submitted report for information. Residents’ concerns were addressed in the development brief and would continue to be addressed through the planning process.

The report advised that the selection of a developer would be through a design and bid process. Potential developers would need to submit material including layout plans, house types, house plans and elevations, cross-sections through the site, a landscape plan, a commitment to the financial sums and works requested in the development brief, together with a financial bid. A high quality scheme was required and selection would be based equally on the quality of the proposed development, the degree of adherence to the development brief and the financial bid.

ORDERED

1. That the comments received during the consultation be noted.
2. That development brief MP376, to guide the development and disposal of site 44 Longridge, Coulby Newham, be approved.
3. That 12 affordable units form part of the requirement within the proposed development.
4. That the principle of a development agreement, which allowed for the provisions as contained within paragraph 7 of the submitted report, be approved.
5. That the selection process as outlined within paragraph 10 of the submitted report, be approved.

REASON

The decisions were supported by the following reason:

The preparation and approval of the development brief and development agreement set out the Council’s requirements and would ensure an appropriate quality of development and improvements to the surrounding facilities.

Campaigners Presentation
Site 44, Longridge Wood has been in the development plan for over 25 years. Surely even the best business in the world would not make a 25-year plan, without reviewing it every three – five years. We are therefore asking Middlesbrough Council to review this.

Middlesbrough’s tree cover, at 1% is ten times lower than the national average. The Council therefore seeks to conserve, improve and expand the tree population, in accordance with the Middlesbrough Urban Forestry Strategy and the Tees Forest Plan.

In the Middlesbrough Local Development Framework it states:

Whilst Middlesbrough is highly urbanised in character it also has significant expanses of open space such as the beck valleys, green wedges and green flag parks, that provide a recreational and visual resource, whilst also providing valuable habitats for wildlife. The LDF will seek to protect and enhance these areas, which contribute to the attractiveness of the town. They will be increasingly important to contribute to the overall attractiveness of the town to realise future regeneration plans.

The community strategy states:

The special role our green spaces have will be reflected in the Community Strategy. Embraced in the Green Spaces Strategy and the Local Development Framework, these areas, whether parks, becklands or other green, open spaces, need to be preserved. This will help to enhance biodiversity as well as preserve and develop safe, green spaces for the enjoyment of local communities.

The Middlesbrough Green Spaces Strategy has had much publicity. It clearly states that we have a deficiency of woodland in Middlesbrough. Amongst many other comments, the Strategy gives values for the green spaces of Middlesbrough. Site 44 was not included. However, when the author of the Green Space Strategy was asked in a South Cluster Meeting, what value would he give this site, following a recent walk through it, he said ‘High Quality’ and ‘Value to the Community’. This is the highest accolade given in the Green Space Strategy.

Middlesbrough Council has just published a Child’s Play Policy, where open space was identified as important for natural themed play. I have recently attended a Local Area Agreement Conference.

In the LOCAL AREA AGREEMENT it states:

Ø Develop a high quality network of public realm, open space and parks to serve the needs of the community
Ø Improve air quality
Ø Increase species and habitat biodiversity
Ø Reduce the causes and adverse effects of climate change
Ø Involve all sections of the community in transforming the local environment.

Does Middlesbrough Council not believe in its own convictions?

The council recently sent out a letter stating:
There are longer-term recommendations for a countryside park in the Council's draft Green Space Strategy and the Middlesbrough Local Plan allocates a location south of Stainton Way. Will we have to wait another 28 years for this to develop? If we use site 44 we could start this tomorrow.

If this natural habitat where deer graze regularly, were to be included with Newham Grange Leisure Farm, and Fairy Dell you would have a ready-made Country Park. As Middlesbrough has been trying to create a country park for 28 years I would have thought that this would be an opportunity not to be missed. Eventually the two fields adjoining, which also belong to MBC could be included and these fields could be created into maybe a Maze or a Woodland Adventure Park. The community would be willing to bid for lottery funding etc. to help get this up and running. However, it could be started with very little funding. Added to this you have the Westbeck Way, which runs all the way from Albert Park to Brass Castle Lane. This would not only benefit the whole of Middlesbrough it would attract people into the area, plus school parties from all over the region.
Can you not see therefore, that by losing the woodland at Site 44, you will be losing a wonderful asset of Middlesbrough?

We have asked for an Independent Ecological Survey to be done on this site, to our knowledge this has not happened.

I ask you to think not only about the Marton West community who use this site every day, but to think about the effect this could have on Middlesbrough as a whole. As this site has been in the local development plan for over 25 years we feel that the Rights of Way Act has a significant part to play. With the help of the Open Spaces Society, Friends of the Earth, Campaign for the Protection of Rural England and our Member of the European Parliament we will keep up the fight, with the hope that MBC will see sense instead of pound signs.

We have just found out that a meeting will be held on 5th January re: the Ecological Survey, where the council will claim that this is a small insignificant site and therefore should not require a survey. How can they do this?


DISPOSAL OF SITE 44 (LONGRIDGE) TURNBERRY WAY, MARTON, MIDDLESBROUGH

The Director of Resources submitted a report that advised of the bids received for site 44 (Longridge), Turnberry Way, Marton and recommended a course of action.

The site had been identified within the Middlesbrough Local Plan for approximately 20 years. It represented a key step in the Council site disposal programme mapped out in the Coulby Newham Master Plan. As such it represented the culmination of a protracted and intense site disposal effort by the Council, completion of which was made possible by the removal of electricity pylons. Informal bids were invited following the usual procedures and following a financial review based on the range of bids received, the top 5 were assessed on quality and content. Assessments by Urban Policy and Transport and Design were attached to the submitted report at Appendix A. Councillor T Ward spoke at the meeting in opposition to the proposals.

ORDERED

1. That developer A be selected as preferred developer, subject to provision of additional clarification and information requested by the Council.
2. That should the appropriate clarification and information not be forthcoming from Developer A then the site be remarketed.
3. That further reports, as necessary, be submitted to the Executive Member for Economic Regeneration and Culture on the progress of discussions with developer A.

REASON

The decisions were supported by the following reason:

Developer A offered the best combination as to capital receipt and degree of compliance with the development brief albeit not up to the expected standard.

OPTION APPRAISAL

In making the decision the following options were considered:

Option 1 – That developer A be selected as preferred developer.
Option 2 – Request developers A, B and C to provide further submission material. 






INDIVIDUAL EXECUTIVE DECISION MAKING MEETING

EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR ECONOMIC REGENERATION & CULTURE

RECORD OF DECISION



The following items were approved on 20 November 2006

1. Disposal of Site 44 (Longridge) Turnberry Way, Marton, Middlesbrough.
2. Facelift and Improvement works to Private Properties.
3. DOTT 07.



Signed ____________________________________________

Cllr D Budd

20 November 2006














SITE 44, COULBY NEWHAM – REQUIREMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT – SCREENING OPINION

Prior to the presentation of this report, a request was placed before committee for permission to record the process on video. A vote was taken and Members rejected the request with a majority vote.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration presented a report the purpose of which was to inform Members of a request for an EIA screening opinion for the residential development proposed and Site 44, Coulby Newham, Middlesbrough.

A screening opinion referred to the Local Authority’s formalised view or opinion as to whether or not the application for the proposed development must be accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES) under the EIA legislation.

Members were advised that the request for a screening opinion in this case had been submitted by Cecil M Yuill Ltd., the provisional preferred developer for Site 44. As part of this request they had provided a letter which set out the case as to why an ES would not be required in this instance. The following information had been provided by Cecil M Yuill Limited and was considered to be accurate by Council Officers.

Site 44 covers an area of approximately 3.1ha and had a capacity of approximately 80 dwellings. The proposed development was to be predominantly low lying in nature and was not expected to give rise to any significant increase in traffic emissions or noise.

Whilst issues of traffic impact etc., would need to be investigated as part of normal planning procedures, Members were advised that the development would not have significant environmental effects and an EIA was not therefore considered necessary. The proposed development did not fall within any of the categories of development as set out in schedule 10 – Infrastructure Projects of Schedule 11 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999.

Full details of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 1999: the Screening Process, were included in paragraphs 4.5 to 4.8 of the report. It was confirmed that there was a typing error in the report, in paragraph 4.7, the last line of which should state ‘on a site greater that 5.0 hectares’ and not 0.5 hectares.

Members were advised that the view of the Development Control Service was that on balance the above summary was a reasonable and sound conclusion on the combination of the criteria used to determine whether or not an EIA was required. The Council’s Planning Officers agreed with the agents’ conclusion that the submitted application should not be required to undergo an EIA.

Several objectors were present and their representative elected to address the Committee. Ward Councillor, Councillor T Ward also elected to address the Committee, in support of an EIA being requested.

A discussion followed during which legal and planning opinion was sought by Members.

ORDERED as follows:-

1. that Members noted the receipt of the request for a screening opinion; and
2. that Members agreed with the Screening Opinion that an Environmental Statement was not required in this case.

Campaigners presentation
We consider that Site 44 has `significant environmental effects' which mean it must be considered as a Schedule 2 project and that an Environmental Impact Assessment is essential. The House of Lords has recently made several judgments, to ensure that the European Court of Justice directives, are now a fundamental part of both European and British environmental policy.

Dealing first with the EIS document: one of the statements is that the “the effects of a project on the environment, must be assessed.... ” It continues .. “ it shall identify, describe and assess in an appropriate manner, in the light of each individual case, the direct and indirect effects of a project on the following factors, human beings, fauna and flora; plus other criteria”.

Middlesbrough Local Development Plan 1999, in the Environmental Appraisal section, begins - - “The Town and Country Planning Regulations 1991, expressly require local authorities to take account of environmental considerations, when preparing their development plans. Local Authorities are also required to undertake an environmental appraisal of all policies and proposals within their plans”.
So if Middlesbrough Development Plan states that Local Authorities are required to undertake an environmental appraisal of all policies and proposals within their plans, why has the Council not done so for Site 44?

Point 1.2 of the Local Development Plan then states,--“The environment is, by definition, the base for all human activities and is therefore an all-pervading concern. Environmental issues have been a major consideration as the framework for all the policies set out throughout this plan”.
But human activities already exist within Site 44! Paths criss-cross this site, which is used for dog walking, jogging, horse riding, plus mountain biking by children.

The Local Development Plan continues with Point 1.10 “ ..Environmental issues have long been the concern of planning, and are now at the forefront of public and political concern. This is reflected in the recent publication of PPG 9 on Nature Conservation. There is wide awareness of the pressures upon the environment and a realisation that environmental changes are frequently irreversible.”
Site 44 is a mature, planted, woodland containing over 500 trees, planted some 12 years ago, on a steeply sloped site. Many of the trees are over 20 feet tall. If this woodland is demolished, and houses built, the result will be totally irreversible.

The site has become the habitat of families of deer, many birds, butterflies and plants. It also contains bats. The Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994 provides protection, not only for the bat and it’s roost site (whether occupied or not) but also for foraging which includes the flight lines between roost sites and foraging areas. This becomes an essential consideration when there is a proposal to reduce or remove an established hedgerow, or when clear felling sections of woodland is proposed.

Middlesbrough Council’s Green Spaces Strategy Document, admits that Middlesbrough’s tree cover, at 1%, is ten times lower than the national average. It continues, “The Council therefore seeks to conserve, improve and expand the tree population, in accordance with the Middlesbrough Urban Forestry Strategy and The Tees Forest Plan”.
Paul Rabbits, author of the “Green Spaces Strategy”, has actually stated that this site is of ‘High Quality’ and ‘Value to the Community’, the highest accolade in the ‘Green Spaces Strategy’.

The Development Brief MP376 for Site 44, under the heading Layout and Building Form, states that … “(point a) .. the new development will be expected to respond to existing site topography, to ensure that the new development responds to the site context, and surrounding development, including existing housing, woodland and roads.

The local habitats and access to them are important for communities and as Middlesbrough has such a small ecological capital all are important.

The campaigners ask you to take on board the fact that there is considerable local community, political and media interest in the development of this site, including strong local opposition to any development per se. The woodland, including its flora and fauna, is too valuable to our community for it to be lost.

We cannot believe that this woodland may be demolished without even having an Environmental Impact Assessment, especially as the Development Brief MP376 states,- in point 3.1, -- that “. The site slopes down from the existing housing development towards Stainton Way. In recent years there has been significant regeneration of the site … Due to the extent of the regeneration and the potential increase of biodiversity of the site, the successful developer will be required to carry out a full ecological survey of the site.”

Those are the words which were written by Middlesbrough Council !!

We are therefore asking for and Environmental impact assessment to be carried out by an ecologist with IEEM membership.