The South Tyneside Local S tage

AssessmentsS iteS :Review Belt Green TwoS Plan

(July 2019)

2

- 2 -

To find out more about the Local Plan, please contact:

Spatial Planning Development Services

South Tyneside Council Town Hall and Civic Offices,

Westoe Road South Shields,

NE33 2RL

Telephone: (0191) 424 7688

E-mail: local.plan@southtyneside.gov.uk

Visit: www.southtyneside.gov.uk/planning If you know someone who would like this information in a

different format contact the communications team on (0191) 424 7385

- 3 -

- 4 -

Contents

1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................5

2. Report Structure .......................................................................................................................6

3. The Purpose of the Green Belt ..................................................................................................7

The Sub-Regional Context .................................................................................................................. 7

Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council ......................................................................................... 7

Sunderland City Council ...................................................................................................................... 7

The International Advanced Manufacturing Park Area Action Plan ................................................... 8

Review of changes since the adoption of the Local Development Plan ........................................... 10

Review of Planning applications ....................................................................................................... 10

Should the Green Belt boundary be redrawn on the Basis of Extant Planning Permissions? .......... 13

4. Site Specific Analysis ............................................................................................................... 14

1. Mapping the existing Green Belt ............................................................................................ 14

2. Identifying designations and constraints ................................................................................ 15

3. Assessing each parcel against the five NPPF purposes ........................................................... 16

4. Summarise results and make recommendations for each parcel .......................................... 22

5. Next Steps: if necessary consider changes through the Local Plan process ........................... 22

5. Summary of Key Findings ........................................................................................................ 22

Green Belt Parcel Assessments ........................................................................................................ 26

6. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 27

- 5 -

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The establishment of and maintenance of Green Belt around many of England’s main urban

areas in order to strictly control development has long been a part of national planning policy.

1.2 Green Belt is a nationally prescribed planning designation, the principle of which is to keep land

permanently open to prevent urban sprawl, creating a sense of openness and preventing the

conjoining of urban areas. The principle of a Green Belt has been in existence in the London area since

the 1930s and was formally brought into being in the rest of the country in 1947 as a tool to shape and

influence the patterns of development around major conurbations.

1.3 The Tyne & Wear Green Belt regulates the rural space in part of the North East. Centred on the

former county of Tyne & Wear, it extends into Northumberland and County Durham. A Green Belt

therefore has the capacity to shape patterns of development at a sub-regional and regional scale,

helping to ensure that development occurs in locations that have been allocated in development

plans, whilst at the same time safeguarding countryside, agriculture, forestry and other rural

purposes.

1.4 This report seeks to review South Tyneside’s existing Green Belt in order to inform the emerging

Local Plan. Whilst the Green Belt was established to help prevent the spread of urban development,

the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, 2019) requires local authorities to meet their

respective development needs.

1.5 Green Belt reviews are not just a numbers exercise concerning ‘untouchable’ land, they should

align with strategic local objectives and, with due care and consideration, can deliver vast

improvements for local communities while retaining benefit for the environment.

1.6 This Stage Two Green Belt Review does not itself determine whether or not land should remain

or be included within the Green Belt. Rather, it appraises sites against the purposes of the Green Belt.

It does not appraise the suitability of sites for development, or take into account other potentially

physical policy constraints, such as flood risk, ecology, heritage, etc. These issues are dealt with

separately through other evidential work that will support the Local Plan. This Review is therefore a

technical document that will be used to aid decisions on where the Green Belt may be amended, if

necessary, to accommodate future development requirements.

1.7 Through the Local Plan process, the sustainability of all potential sites that are considered for

allocation over the plan period will be assessed. Sites will be identified through the Strategic Housing

Land Availability Assessment (2019), Employment Land Review (2019) and other studies for a wide

variety of potential land uses. The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) process will consider which sites could

have significant negative impacts on a range of objectives including economic, social and

environmental and will help to filter out unsuitable sites.

- 6 -

2. REPORT STRUCTURE

2.1 South Tyneside’s Green Belt Review has been separated into three reports:

The Stage One Green Belt Review: Exceptional Circumstances (July 2019) comprehensively assesses the exceptional circumstances that exist at the strategic (or Borough wide) level that which justifies the alteration of the existing Green Belt boundary through our emerging Local Plan.

This Stage Two Green Belt Review: Site Assessments (July 2019) assesses land in the

Green Belt against the five purposes to identify those areas that perform the strongest Green Belt function and those that perform a lesser Green Belt function.

The Stage Three Green Belt Review: Site Specific Exceptional Circumstances (August 2019)

summarises details how we have assessed and justified making detailed boundary amendments to the Green Belt for this emerging Local Plan based upon the detailed exceptional circumstances relating to those individual boundaries.

- 7 -

3. THE PURPOSE OF THE GREEN BELT

3.1 The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts in its revised NPPF (2019). The

fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.

3.2 Green Belt serves five purposes:

To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;

To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another;

To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;

To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and

To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

3.3 Green Belt boundaries can only be altered in exceptional circumstances through the preparation

or updating of plans, having regard to their intended permanence in the long term in order that they

can endure beyond the Plan period.

THE SUB-REGIONAL CONTEXT

3.4 Over recent years, Green Belt boundaries in the North East have been reviewed and

reconsidered by a number of local authorities. Principally this has been in the context of providing

more land for development in order to meet the growth requirements. In this context, neighbouring

local authorities have considered changes to their Green Belt boundaries through their respective

Local Plan process. Figure 1 illustrates the Green Belt designation across South Tyneside and the

neighbouring authorities of Gateshead and Sunderland.

GATESHEAD METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL

3.5 The Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan for Gateshead and Newcastle upon Tyne 2010-2030 was

adopted in 2015. Gateshead’s Urban Core Plan proposes to deliver a number of strategic objectives in

order to accommodate these development needs. Its own Green Belt Review demonstrated that

exceptional circumstances existed and in turn the Plan identifies specific sites that have been removed

from the Green Belt. For example, the South of Follingsby Lane Employment Site in Gateshead has

been allocated in order to meet a locational need for employment land to cater for storage and

distribution. The site abuts the administrative boundaries of Sunderland and South Tyneside. The

impact of this Green Belt release on the strategic role of the Green Belt is somewhat lessened by the

Wardley Colliery site, which is industrial in nature.

SUNDERLAND CITY COUNCIL

3.6 As a result of Sunderland’s need to deliver the right homes in the right locations, the emerging

Core Strategy (presently at public Examination) seeks to allocate a number of Housing Growth Areas

which would see land released from the Green Belt. Their Green Belt Review has helped to inform

those areas where the Green Belt boundaries could be amended to meet Sunderland’s objectively

assessed needs until 2033 and beyond. Sunderland has also identified an area of Safeguarded Land

- 8 -

for employment purposes located to the west of IAMP. Sunderland City Council’s Local Plan has

recently been through Examination.

THE INTERNATIONAL ADVANCED MANUFACTURING PARK AREA ACTION PLAN

3.7 In 2017, in partnership with Sunderland City Council, we adopted the International Advanced

Manufacturing Park (IAMP) Area Action Plan. Separate evidence of the exceptional circumstances

supported the formal deletion of some 150ha of land from the Green Belt which cuts across our joint

boundary. In South Tyneside, the total Green Belt lost to the IAMP allocation was some 63 ha.

- 9 -

Figure 1: Green Belt - Sub-Regional Context

- 10 -

REVIEW OF CHANGES SINCE THE ADOPTION OF THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN

3.8 Having established that exceptional circumstances can be proven to amend Green Belt

boundaries through the Stage One Green Belt Review (2019), this Stage Two Review is a detailed

assessment of the Green Belt that will form part of the evidence base to support the emerging Local

Plan.

3.9 Although a relatively short time has elapsed since adoption of our Core Strategy (2007) which

confirmed the broad overall extent of the Green Belt within the Borough, there is potential that

circumstances have changed at the local level which could have an impact on the robustness and

appropriateness of the boundaries. This must also be a factor which needs to be considered when

providing recommendations for the Local Plan.

REVIEW OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS

3.10 Certain forms of development are appropriate within the Green Belt, such as buildings for

agriculture, the provision of appropriate facilities, and limited infilling in villages. Such development is

considered to have no material impact on the openness of the Green Belt and its purposes.

Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and applicants must

demonstrate that ‘very special circumstances’ exist that outweigh the harm caused to the Green Belt.

3.11 Whilst planning applications may be approved and implemented within the Green Belt, they

remain technically overwashed by the Green Belt. Only a full review of the Green Belt boundary can

determine whether these application sites can or should be removed from the Green Belt. This

Review includes those areas of land where development has been permitted and implemented.

3.12 Since 2007 there have been 561 applications registered within the current Green Belt

boundaries or immediately adjacent to the boundary, 517 of which have been determined. Those

applications that are located adjacent to the boundary warrant consideration given that any

development could have an impact on the permanence of the adjoining boundary. The applications

vary in terms of the type and scale of development proposed and cover a number of different types of

application.

3.13 There have only been a limited number of approved and implemented applications which could

have had a substantive impact on the role and function of the Green Belt. The majority of the

applications over the time period have been concerned with individual dwellings in the Green Belt, or

those immediately adjacent, and have been for small-scale changes such as house extensions. Such

proposals have a limited impact on both the strategic role of the Green Belt and the robustness of the

boundary.

3.14 However, there have been some applications for more major proposals over this timeframe

including applications for new-build development and for change-of-use. These are explored below in

order for their impacts on the Green Belt to be assessed.

Residential Development

3.15 There have been a very limited number of schemes approved since 2007:

- 11 -

Table 1: Residential Approvals

App Ref Description of Proposal Decision Notes ST/1921/07/FUL Conversion of barns to 3 dwellings Grant Permission Green Belt ST/2640/07/FUL Erection of detached bungalow and 3 parking

bays Grant Permission Adjacent Land

ST/1798/08/FUL Creation of a separate dwelling unit Grant Permission Green Belt ST/0632/11/FUL Construction of single detached farmhouse

and garage Grant Permission Green Belt

ST/1648/12/LBC Conversion of existing farmhouse and barns to create 7 no. residential units and 1 no. new dwelling, associated garages

Grant Permission Green Belt

ST/0166/14/FUL Construction of detached farmhouse and garage

Grant Permission Green Belt

ST/0938/14/FUL Demolition of former army camp buildings and construction of 48 no. dwellings

Grant Permission Green Belt

ST/0791/14/FUL Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 9 no. dwelling houses

Grant Permission Green Belt

ST/1193/14/FUL Demolition of hanger and erection of terrace of 7 dwellings

Grant Permission Green Belt

ST/0370/15/FUL Conversion of existing barns/outbuildings to 3 no. residential units

Grant Permission Green Belt

3.16 The majority of approved development in the Green Belt involved new physical construction

and none were of a scale that justified excluding them from the Green Belt with the exception of the

former army camp in Whitburn, which merits further consideration (Table 4).

Employment, Industrial and Commercial Development

3.17 There are a number of existing employment and commercial uses within Green Belt boundaries,

something which is a continuing reflection of the Borough’s industrial past. However, rather than

applications for significant operations, most of the examples of planning applications received since

LDF designation relate to small-scale changes to existing premises, such as extension and renovation.

The notable examples over this time period are set out in Table 2.

Table 2: Employment, Industrial and Commercial Approvals

App Ref Description of Proposal Decision Notes

ST/2061/10/FUL Change of use of agricultural land to use as dog training, with car park area

Grant Permission Green Belt

ST/0765/11/FUL The siting of a hot food van Grant Permission Green Belt

ST/0995/13/FUL Anaerobic digestion facility with associated buildings

Grant Permission Green Belt

ST/1051/12/FUL Change of use from coal disposal point and continued use of the site for storage and containers

Grant Permission Green Belt

3.18 It is considered that there is no justification for these to be excluded from the Green belt

boundary.

- 12 -

Leisure Development

3.19 There have been a number of applications for development which can loosely be grouped under

the term ‘leisure’ uses. Some of these uses could be complimentary to a Green Belt location, for

example relatively minor development related to tourism or for countryside pursuits. Several

applications have been refused for proposals which were considered to be inappropriate within the

Green Belt and for which the applicants were unable to demonstrate exceptional circumstances.

Agricultural Development

3.20 Given the nature of the Green Belt there have been a number of applications relating to

agricultural land uses. Proposals for development of agricultural buildings would generally be seen as

compatible Green Belt uses, provided they meet the criteria of all other relevant planning policy.

Other Development

3.21 Finally, there have been applications for development which do not fall within any of the

previous broad categories. A review of these applications shows that proposals have varied in scope

and scale.

Table 3: Other Development Approvals

App Ref Description of Proposal Decision Notes

ST/1469/08/FUL Retrospective application for change of use from agricultural land for a temporary period to a caravan site for gypsy and travellers

Grant Permission Green Belt

ST/1502/08/FUL St Joseph’s School redevelopment with associated external playing fields and games courts

Grant Permission School on adjacent land, playing fields in Green Belt.

ST/1641/08/FUL Erection of single storey education centre Grant Permission Green Belt

ST/0107/09/FUL Erection of new reception cabin and shop associated with Lizard Lane Caravan and Camping Park

Grant Permission Green Belt

ST/0173/09/FUL Redevelopment of former King George V school site with associated sports pitches

Grant Permission Green Belt

ST/0373/13/FUL Retrospective application to retain the use of the land on a permanent basis as gypsy and traveller caravan site: 11 pitches

Grant Permission Green Belt

ST/0869/15/LAA Detached building associated with Holder House Garden Project

Grant Permission Green Belt

ST/0072/17/FUL Construction of building for the nesting and monitoring of sand martins

Grant Permission Green Belt

3.22 It is considered that these should remain washed over and they will therefore not be assessed

further.

- 13 -

SHOULD THE GREEN BELT BOUNDARY BE REDRAWN ON THE BASIS OF EXTANT PLANNING PERMISSIONS?

3.23 Whilst strategically though our The Stage One Green Belt Review we demonstrate that

exceptional circumstances exist at the strategic level, from this specific Stage Two Review, it is

considered justifiable to remove one parcel from the Green Belt ie the former Whitburn Army Camp

that was approved for 48 dwellings which have now been completed since the Core Strategy was

adopted:

Table 4: Proposed Amendment of Existing Green Belt Boundary, Whitburn

Crown Copyright reserved. Licence No. 100019570

Application Reference: ST/0938/14/FUL

Address: Whitburn Army Camp, Mill Lane

The site in question is located in the Green Belt. However, it is considered that the implementation of permission for the demolition of former army camp buildings and construction of 42 no. residential dwellings has established a defensible position for the Green Belt boundary such that there is now a clear distinction between land that is residential and land that is open. National planning guidance states that land that it is not necessary to keep permanently open should not be included within the Green Belt. This parcel of land is wholly developed with residential units. The land is not open and does not perform a green belt role or function. The planning consent has therefore resulted in a material change in circumstances which may justify an amendment to the green belt boundary.

3.24 Another parcel of land which is considered to be important at a strategic level is and is proposed

for deletion from the Green Belt concerns a parcel of land to the west of Fellgate:

- 14 -

4. SITE SPECIFIC ANALYSIS

4.1 Land designated as Green Belt must fulfil the five purposes as set out in the NPPF. Part of the

plan preparation process involves assessing whether South Tyneside’s Green Belt requires any

boundary changes, having regard to its intended permanence in the long term, so that it can endure

beyond the plan period.

4.2 The methodology for parcel assessment has been developed in light of the guidance in the NPPF

relating to Green Belt and following an analysis of best practice through a review of methodologies

utilised elsewhere in the country and as part of a wider task to look at Green Belt designations across

the North East. This stage follows the strategic consideration of development needs at Stage One

Green Belt Review, where it was concluded that there exist strategic exceptional circumstances that

would require a change to the boundaries of the existing Green Belt.

4.3 This Stage Two Green Belt Review examines the contribution that individual parcels make to

NPPF Green Belt objectives. It should be noted that the Review does not look at the merits of

developing specific sites. This will be undertaken through the Local Plan. Rather, this Review assesses

the strategic performance of areas of Green Belt against the purpose of the Green Belt designation. It

is important to note that assessments are not weighted. Rather, professional judgement has been

used to ensure that all factors are taken into account.

1. MAPPING THE EXISTING GREEN BELT

4.4 In 2013, the Council published a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) to

identify and assess as many sites as possible that may have the potential to provide for housing in

South Tyneside, whilst an Employment Land Review (ELR) was undertaken in 2014 to assess the stock,

availability and demand for employment sites. Once these sites were identified, a Strategic Land

1. Map existing Green Belt

2. Identify designations and constraints

3. Assess each parcel against the five NPPF purposes

4. Summarise results and make recommendations for each parcel

5. Next steps: if necessary consider changes through the Local Plan process

- 15 -

Review (SLR) was carried out. Appraisals of all the identified sites covered landscape and townscape,

biodiversity, green infrastructure, historic environment and culture, flooding, infrastructure and

services, ground conditions and contamination. The SLR proved a valuable appraisal tool for providing

an initial indicative overview of all sites in both a housing and economic development potential

context and for providing an opportunity for developers, consultants, landowners and the wider

community to comment on the site appraisal process.

4.5 The SHLAA was updated in 2019 following more recent calls for sites. The ELR was also updated

in 2019 and contains assessments of sites in employment use. Together, these studies provide the

starting point for the Green Belt site selection process.

4.6 A mapping exercise was carried out to identify individual Green Belt parcels based on a

combination of the above studies, land ownership, site promotion, landscape characteristics and

professional judgement. The overriding aim was to identify boundaries that make logical sense,

reflecting on the ground constraints and features. There are some areas of land which are lacking any

strong physical boundaries and, where this is the case, parcels of land are relatively large. As a

consequence of this, the size and shape of parcels vary considerably but this is reflective of the

geography and nature of the Green Belt and does not distort the analysis undertaken.

4.7 The assessment process divided the Green Belt into 119 separate parcels. Each parcel is given

the same reference as in the SLR for the purposes of continuity. However, where Green Belt parcel

boundaries have been amended and no longer reflect those in the SLR, the numbering system follows

on from this. A summary of the individual Green Belt parcel assessments can be viewed in Table 12.

2. IDENTIFYING DESIGNATIONS AND CONSTRAINTS

4.8 The following list of strong, moderate and weak boundaries was used to guide the order of

preference for boundary definition whereby strong and moderate boundaries should be used first,

followed by weak boundaries. The list is based on the level of permanence of the boundaries and is

consistent with the approach used in the neighbouring authority of Sunderland and for the

assessment that was carried out in relation to IAMP. It should be noted, however, that the strength of

boundaries was not a determining factor in the overall assessment given it may be possible in certain

circumstances to secure mitigation to strengthen currently weak boundaries or to provide new

boundaries where gaps exist.

Strong boundaries

Motorway

Main road (A roads, B roads, unclassified roads)

Railway line

Residential, employment or other development with strong established boundaries

Watercourses (rivers, streams, canals, lakes)

Protected woodlands (with statutory designation)

Protected hedges

Prominent topography

Moderate boundaries

Minor road (e.g. single track, private maintained road or unmaintained road)

- 16 -

Residential, employment or other development with intermediate established boundaries

Prominent field boundaries (i.e. clearly defined and accompanied by continuous physical features such as significant hedge, stone wall, watercourse, line of trees)

Prominent public footpath, public bridleway or restricted byway (i.e. clearly defined and accompanied by other physical features such as significant hedge, stone wall, watercourse, line of trees)

Disused railway lines (where in cutting or on raised embankment)

Line of protected trees (TPO)

Non protected woodlands

Brook (where wooded or with steep sides).

Weak boundaries

Residential, employment or other development with weak or intermediate established boundaries

Other public footpath, public bridleway or restricted byway that is not clearly defined as a physical feature or is unaccompanied by other physical features

Disused railway line (where level with surrounding area)

Open space boundaries

Private road (unmaintained)

Non-protected hedges

Line of non-protected trees

Brooks (non-wooded and level with surroundings)

Culverted watercourses

Field boundaries (where physical features are lacking or intermittent).

4.9 The appropriateness of parcel boundaries was then confirmed by on-site surveys. If the officer

conducting the survey felt that a more appropriate boundary should be used instead, this was

highlighted as part of the assessment of the parcel. This would result in a consideration of whether a

parcel should be split into a number of sites or whether separate parcels could be joined together.

4.10 Each parcel was mapped electronically against ‘known constraints’ using GIS software in order

to provide some additional context. These constraints are usually of an environmental and physical

nature and include:

Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)

Flood Risk Zones

Designated Heritage Assets

Local Wildlife Sites

Public Rights of Way.

3. ASSESSING EACH PARCEL AGAINST THE FIVE NPPF PURPOSES

4.11 The assessment of the parcels is based on openness of the Green Belt and the degree to which

they satisfy the five Green Belt purposes set out in the NPPF. Each purpose was broken down into a

number of components comprising key questions. These draw on a joint approach and methodology

developed with the City of Sunderland that is consistent with their Local Plan and the approach used in

relation to IAMP in the interests of robustness and in ensuring consistency. The detailed proformas

- 17 -

setting out the assessments for each parcel can be found in the Appendices. The findings are

summarised in Table 10 and illustrated spatially in Figure 3,

4.12 Desk-based analysis was carried out in the first instance, followed by site assessments, to assess

parcels against the purposes.

Purpose 1: Check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas

4.13 In assessing each parcel against NPPF criteria, a number of sub-questions were used to help in

making an informed judgement. These allowed a consistent approach across each individual

assessment which helps to focus the criteria down to locally-specific issues. These sub-questions play

an important role in helping to structure the discussion in the context of the Local Plan.

4.14 Assessments have been carried out by South Tyneside Council planning officers, firstly using

electronic mapping and online resources to make an initial judgement against the criteria before

heading out on-site to confirm these initial conclusions or, otherwise, make the amendments which it

is evident are necessary. Some of these issues are more readily apparent when out on site,

particularly those relating to topography and setting, and as a result the on-site consideration is an

essential element of the overall process.

4.15 The sub-questions and aspects considered during assessment, both desktop and then on site,

are set out below.

Table 5: Purpose 1

Key Questions

Would a reduction in the gap between settlements compromise the openness of the Green Belt? If development of the parcel were to take place, would this reduce the actual of perceived gap between settlements? The definition of openness: the visible openness of the Green Belt in terms of the absence of built development; a topography which supports long line views and low levels of substantial vegetation. Difficult to define as it is not simply just the distance between the settlement and the countryside but can include the perceived distance.

The parcel is fully enclosed by built development

The parcel adjoins the urban area or built development along three boundaries (consider potential for rounding off)

The parcel adjoins the urban area of built development along at least two boundaries (consider level of existing sprawl within parcel including any ribbon development)

The parcel adjoins the urban area or built development along one boundary

The parcel is completely detached from the urban area of built development (excluding agricultural buildings) (consider level of protrusion into the Green Belt

Purpose 2: Prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another

4.16 In addition to the clear function of this purpose in preventing towns from merging and therefore

protecting existing gaps between towns, it also forms the basis for maintaining the existing settlement

pattern.

Table 6: Purpose 2

Key Questions

Is the parcel well connected to the urban area or existing built development?

The parcel does not form part of the gap between any settlements

- 18 -

Would development help ‘round off’ the settlement pattern? Is there existing ribbon development or potential for ribbon development? Definitions: Well-connected - ‘contiguous land’ - highly contained by the existing urban area i.e. to be surrounded by high levels of built development. Open land – land which is lacking of development. Round-off – where the existing settlement is an irregular shape, will it fill in a gap and/or complete the shape?

The parcel forms part of a very large gap between settlements

The parcel forms part of the gap between settlements and is adjacent to the urban area or built development

The parcel forms part of the gap between settlements and does not adjoin the urban area

The parcel forms part of a gap between settlements whereby development would result in the narrowing of this gap (more than 50%) and/or merging

Purpose 3: Assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment

4.17 This purpose seeks to safeguard the countryside. The assessment considered openness and the

extent to which the Green Belt can be characterised as ‘countryside’, thus resisting encroachment

from past development. Openness refers to the extent to which Green Belt land could be considered

open from an absence of built development rather than from a landscape character perspective,

where openness might be characterised through topography and presence or otherwise of woodland

and hedgerow cover.

4.18 GIS and aerial photography were reviewed and site visits undertaken in order to assess

openness.

4.19 It is acknowledged that the majority of Green Belt parcels will involve an element of

encroachment. It should be borne in mind that most land within the Green Belt should by its very

definition contribute towards Purpose 3. Only those parcels which have been significantly developed

and therefore have limited opportunity for future development would not make a contribution

towards the safeguarding of the countryside.

Table 7: Purpose 3

Key Questions

Has there been existing encroachment – are there existing urbanising influences within the parcel or adjacent to the parcel? What is the existing land use/uses (residential, industrial, community, leisure, farm, open fields, agricultural)? Proximity/relationship to the settlement/countryside - Is the parcel adjoining/adjacent/detached from the settlement/countryside?

The parcel is developed and contains above 50% built form (and adjoins an urban area)

The parcel is developed and contains up to 50% built form (and adjoins an urban area)

The parcel contains up to 50% built form and is detached from the urban area, or contains up to 25% built form and adjoins the urban area

The parcel is undeveloped or contains minor farm buildings and adjoins the urban area along one or more boundary.

The parcel is undeveloped or contains minor farm buildings and does not adjoin the urban area along any boundary

- 19 -

Does the parcel protect the openness of the countryside? Does the parcel serve a beneficial use of the Green Belt which should be safeguarded? Definitions Beneficial uses of the Green Belt: to provide access to the countryside; to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation; to retain and enhance landscapes; to retain and enhance visual amenity; to retain and enhance biodiversity. Urbanising influences – built environment uses Openness - the visible openness of the Green Belt in terms of the absence of built development, a topography which supports long line views and low levels of substantial vegetation. Openness should be assessed from the edge of the settlement outwards.

NOTE: Consider whether any beneficial uses of the Green Belt exist – if two or more raise assessment.

Purpose 4: Preserve the setting and special character of historic towns

4.20 The relative importance of particular landforms or landscape features to the setting and special

character of a historic town was judged using the South Tyneside Landscape Character Assessment, as

well as Conservation Area Character Appraisals, where applicable. Potential vistas were identified

using GIS mapping and sense checked on site.

Table 8: Purpose 4

Key Questions

Is the nearest settlement to the parcel a historic town? What role does the Green Belt play in preserving the setting and special character of the historic town? What is the relationship of the land with the town? Is there a direct visual connection between the historic components (typically the core) and the Green Belt context? Does the parcel make a positive contribution to the setting of the historic town such as providing a gateway, viewpoint, or historic

Development of the parcel does not abut an identified historic settlement, or is likely to have little or no negative impact on townscape character and distinctiveness and provide opportunities for major benefits.

Development of the parcel is likely to have some negative impact on townscape character and distinctiveness, and is likely to provide opportunities for significant benefits.

Development of the parcel may have some impact on townscape character and distinctiveness, or may provide opportunities to enhance the village and its setting. Some mitigation is likely to be required.

Development of the parcel is likely to have a significant impact on townscape character and distinctiveness. Significant mitigation is likely to be required.

- 20 -

landscape? Development would have a major impact on townscape character and distinctiveness. Major mitigation will be required.

Purpose 5: Assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict land

Table 9: Purpose 5

Key Questions

Does the parcel form part of the built up area? Is the parcel located on the urban fringe or in the open countryside? Does the parcel consist of brownfield/greenfield land?

Land that forms part of a built up area, or brownfield land.

Greenfield land within a built up area, or brownfield land in the urban fringe (where it is fully or partially developed and is located adjacent to the urban area or it is fully undeveloped but within an urban area.

Greenfield land in the urban fringe or brownfield land in open countryside (where it was previously developed or contains limited development and is located adjacent to the urban area and/or built development, or it is partially developed but is located in the open countryside).

Greenfield land in open countryside (undeveloped or mostly undeveloped).

Assessing Harm and Mitigation

4.21 Taking the lead from the Stage One Green Belt Review, the assessments address on a site

specific basis Tests (iv) and (v) of the Calverton Judgement ie the nature and extent of harm caused

and the degree to which it can be mitigated.

4.22 The nature and extent of harm to the Green Belt will vary from site to site, depending on:

The size of the site; The location of the site; The topography, landscape and visual prominence of the site; and The extent of Green Belt that will remain in a given location after development has

occurred, and the ongoing purpose that Green Belt will serve.

4.23 With this is mind, a Green Belt harm assessment has been included for each parcel. This has

made it possible to assess the extent of harm on a site by site basis, which will enable Green Belt harm

to be balanced against the delivery of sustainable development patterns as required by the NPPF.

4.24 There are some measures that can be taken to ensure that harm to Green Belt is minimised

through the overarching plan-making process. Such measures, which may include for example the

creation of new public open spaces, can not only mitigate the effects of harm of the Green Belt, but

also respond positively to the NPPF by promoting the positive use of land in the Green Belt for

recreation and nature conservation purposes. It is particularly critical that development is designed

following the mitigation hierarchy of avoid, mitigate, compensate and ultimately deliver net gains for

wildlife.

- 21 -

4.25 The design and layout of development and the use of landscaping will also play an important

role in mitigating harm to the Green Belt. Design and layout can ensure that development integrates

into both the urban area, and also the rural/semi-rural environment it would form the new boundary

to, and particularly ensure that visually prominent parts of the site are either avoided, or else

developed in a more sensitive way. Landscaping meanwhile can screen development in both nearby

and long-distance views. It is also important that landscaping is integral to development, as when

established settlements are viewed from a distance the rooftops are normally interspersed with

treetops which help to soften the relationship between the urban and rural/semi-rural environments.

High quality design which is based on a context appraisal, and includes consideration of landscaping

requirements, is therefore essential to mitigating harm arising from development on sites within the

current extent of the Green Belt.

4.26 These are matters that are consistent with the recently released Planning Practice Guidance on

Green Belts (July 2019), which compensatory environmental enhancements could for instance include:

new or enhanced green infrastructure;

woodland planting;

landscape and visual enhancements (beyond those needed to mitigate the immediate impacts of the proposal);

improvements to biodiversity, habitat connectivity and natural capital;

new or enhanced walking and cycle routes; and

improved access to new, enhanced or existing recreational and playing field provision.

Overall Assessment

Table 10: Overall Assessment

A: Zero Impact Makes no contribution to the openness of the Green Belt Performs Weakly

B: Minor impact, which can be mitigated

Makes a limited contribution to the openness of the Green Belt, whereby the removal of the parcel would have a minor impact upon the overall openness of the Green Belt

Performs Moderately

C: Moderate impact, which can be mitigated

Makes a limited contribution to the openness of the Green Belt, whereby the removal of this parcel would have a moderate impact upon the overall openness of the Green Belt

Performs Moderately

D: Adverse impact/ some mitigation feasible

Contributes to openness in a significant way, whereby removal of part of the parcel would have a major impact upon the overall openness of the Green Belt

Performs Relatively Strongly

E: Significant adverse impact Contributes to openness in a strong and undeniable way, where removal of the parcel from the Green Belt would detrimentally undermine the overall openness of the Green Belt

Performs Strongly

4.27 When reviewing examples of Green Belt Review carried out by other local authorities it is

revealed that assessments sometimes adopt a quantative scoring system, whereby a relative number

is applied to the impact of each parcel against the criteria for consideration; something which

effectively gives an overall ranking of the site. This type of methodolody was not preferred in South

Tyneside as such a ranking system can result in assessments of land that give an artificial heirarchy.

- 22 -

This can lead to conclusions about the future of each parcel that may not necessarily be appropriate

when all issues and factors affecting a parcel, and the relative contribution that each parcel makes to

the local environment, are assessed.

4. SUMMARISE RESULTS AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EACH PARCEL

4.28 Each assessment of parcels against individual purposes is combined to give an overall judgement

of their impact on overall Green Belt purposes. Appendix A contains the completed proformas for the

parcels within South Tyneside’s Green Belt.

5. NEXT STEPS: IF NECESSARY CONSIDER CHANGES THROUGH THE LOCAL PLAN

PROCESS

4.29 All Green Belt serves an important purpose which, irrespective of any strengthening or

weakening, does not mean that its purpose ceases to be valid. Instead, the purpose of the Local Plan

process is to establish if a release is possible and what harm to the Green Belt would be caused by

such a release. However, even if a potential change is identified at this stage, this will require further

detailed consideration. For example, where the assessment has identified the possibility for the

review of an external boundary, it is essential that another, more permanent and more appropriate,

boundary can be identified. This alternative must be capable of enduring through the plan period to

20?? And beyond.

5. SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

5.1 Table 11 and Figure 2 (below) illustrate the overall contribution that each of the 119 individual

parcels make to the purposes of the Green Belt. Each parcel meets one or more of the NPPF purposes

to varying degrees. Of these:

No parcels have been assessed as making no contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt.

3 parcels (3%) have been assessed as weakly performing Green Belt. In Whitburn, for example, the former Whitburn Rifle Ranges has been redeveloped for residential housing and integrates well into the existing built settlement – These are set out in Annex 1.

26 parcels (21%) have been assessed as moderately performing Green Belt. Whilst the role of these areas in preventing the outward growth of large built-up areas is recognised, their lesser role in preventing sprawl may be due to the fact that a number of these parcels are already predominantly developed where the Green Belt meets the edge of large built-up areas, thus containing development that may already be perceived as sprawl, e.g. parcel BC30 contains a number of structures associated with a former military complex. – These are set out in Annex 2.

40 parcels (34%) have been assessed as performing relatively strongly. These parcels are generally attached to built-up areas but are considered to perform well in terms of the Green belt purposes for a variety of reasons, e.g. BC16a is a prominent site on the edge of a historic settlement. – These are set out in Annex 3.

50 parcels (42%) have been assessed as strongly performing Green Belt. These parcels are generally clustered in the Borough’s most intact swathes of open land and restrict sprawl over areas of a larger scale where there are no natural or man-made features to limit the

- 23 -

extent of sprawl into the countryside or check the form of development, such as BC31, which is a sizeable parcel of land separating South Tyneside from the neighbouring authority of Sunderland. – These are set out in Annex 4.

Table 11: Summary of Individual Assessments

Site Purpose Assessments Overall Summary

Purpose 1: to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas

Purpose 2: to prevent neighbouring towns from merging

Purpose 3: Assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment

Purpose 4: to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns

Purpose 5: to assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict land

A

B

C

D

E

BC1 B E D A C D

BC2 D E D A C E

BC2c C D D A C D

BC3 D E E A C E

BC6a D C D A C D

BC6b C C D A C C

BC16a A D D D C D

BC16b E D E E C E

BC18 C C D A C C

BC19 E E E A D E

BC19a D C D E C E

BC20 D C D E C D

BC25 A C D A C C

BC27 C C D E C D

BC27a C A D E C D

BC28b E B E E D E

BC28f D C D A C D

BC28g C C D A C C

BC30b E D C A A C

BC31 E E E A D E

BC31b D C C A A D

BC31c E D E A D E

BC32a E D E A D E

BC33a D C D A C D

BC34c D C D A C D

BC35 C C D A C D

BC38a C D E A C D

BC39 D C B A B D

BC40a D C D A C C

BC40c C E D A C E

BC41c C E D A C E

BC41d C E C A B E

BC43b C E D A C E

- 24 -

BC43c D E D A C E

BC44 C C D A C C

BC45d C E D A C E

BC45e D C B A B C

BC45f C C D A C C

BC46c D C D A D D

BC46d C C D A C C

BC47 D C B A B C

BC48 E E E A D E

BC48a D E E A C C

BC48b C A D A C C

BC48c B A D A C E

BC50 D E D E C E

BC51a D C D E C D

BC52b D C D E C D

BC52c D C E E D E

BC53 E E E E D E

BC53a D C D E C D

BC53b D C D E C D

BC54 D C D A C C

BC56 D C D E C D

BC57a D C A A C C

BC57b B A A A C B

BC59 D C D A C D

BC64 D C D A C D

BC65 D C D A C D

FG7b D C C A C C

FG12 D C D A C C

FG13 D E D A C E

FG14 D B A A A B

FG14a E B C A C C

FG15a E D C A C E

FG17b D C D A C D

FG17e D C D A C D

FG17f E E E A D E

FG17h E D E A D E

FG17i D C D A C D

FG17j E D E A D E

FG18a D C D A C E

FG18c C C D A C D

FG22b C C C A C C

FG22c D C E A C D

FG22d D C C A B C

FG23 E D E A D E

FG24 E D E A D E

FG25 E E E A D E

FG27a E D D A D E

FG34 E D C A C E

FG35 E D E A D E

FG36 E D E A D E

- 25 -

FG37 E E E A D E

H33a E D E A C E

H34c C E C A C D

H39 C E D A C C

H45 D E D A C E

OSS41 B C D A C C

OSS42 C C D A C D

WH1a C C E A C E

WH2 D C E A C D

WH3 E D E A D E

WH5a D D E A C E

WH5b E D B A A D

WH5c D D E A C E

WH7 D E D A C E

WH8 E D C A C C

WH9 C C D A C C

WH11 C C C A B D

WH12 E E E A D E

WH13a C A D A C C

WH14a D A D A C D

WH15a C A D A C D

WH16 D A A A B B

WH17 C C D A C C

WH18 D C E E C E

WH18a E D E A C E

WH19 D C C D C C

WH20 D C D C C D

WH22 C A E A C E

WH23 C C D D C E

WH24 C A C A C C

WH25 C A C D B C

WH26 C A E E C D

WH27 E C D E C E

WH28 E E E E D E

WH29 C E D E C E

WH31 E D E A D E

- 26 -

GREEN BELT PARCEL ASSESSMENTS

Figure 2: Individual Green Belt Parcel Assessments

27

6. CONCLUSION

6.1 The Stage One Green Belt Review has demonstrated that exceptional circumstances apply in the

Borough of South Tyneside. Stage 2 has examined the performance of the Green Belt in and around

the Borough, as set out in the NPPF, and has considered 119 individual parcels.

6.2 The Green Belt in Tyne and Wear has, since its original designation, played a crucial role in

preventing the outward sprawl of its large built up areas, maintaining the county’s settlement pattern,

ensuring the continued openness of the countryside, and protecting the unique rural context of the

borough’s historic towns and villages. Many decades after its original designation the Green Belt

continues to perform these roles strongly.

6.3 While it is clear that the majority of South Tyneside’s Green Belt is performing an important role

in terms of the NPPF, a number of lesser-performing parcels have been identified. These can broadly

be categorised as follows:

Parcels which perform weakly overall against the NPPF purposes (e.g. attain low grades across all criteria) and could be considered for release through the emerging Local Plan.

Parcels or clusters of parcels which, although moderately or relatively strongly performing against the NPPF purposes, have particular characteristics or synergies with neighbouring weaker parcels, which might lend themselves to further consideration.

Moderately, relatively strongly or strongly performing parcels where there is clear scope for sub-division to identify weakly performing ‘sub-areas’, including the presence of boundary features which have the potential to be permanent and recognisable; these areas could be afforded further consideration in accordance with the above provisions.

6.4 The relatively poor performance of the land against Green Belt purposes is not, of itself, an

exceptional circumstance that can justify release of the land from the Green Belt. Other factors, such

as the ability to meet development needs outside of the Green Belt need to be taken into

consideration.

6.5 The areas identified through this Review are subject to more detailed assessment in Stage 3 to

determine the appropriateness and feasibility of any adjustments to the Green Belt boundary.