Date post: | 12-Jul-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | truongdiep |
View: | 217 times |
Download: | 0 times |
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
October2017
1
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENTFORSTANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN
2017–2032SUBMISSIONVERSON(OCTOBER2017)
October2017
StanningtonParishCouncil
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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.
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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)
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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.
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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.
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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)
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
October2017
11
StanningtonNeighbourhoodDevelopmentPlan,ConsultationStatementforSubmissionPlan,(October2017)
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–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]
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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
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
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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
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
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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]
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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.”
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
October2017
18
No. Consultee Pageor
Policy
Comment Response ChangesProposed
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.
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
October2017
19
No. Consultee Pageor
Policy
Comment Response ChangesProposed
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.
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
October2017
20
No. Consultee Pageor
Policy
Comment Response ChangesProposed
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.
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
October2017
21
No. Consultee Pageor
Policy
Comment Response ChangesProposed
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.
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
October2017
22
No. Consultee Pageor
Policy
Comment Response ChangesProposed
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.
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
October2017
23
No. Consultee Pageor
Policy
Comment Response ChangesProposed
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.
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
October2017
24
No. Consultee Pageor
Policy
Comment Response ChangesProposed
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.
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
October2017
25
No. Consultee Pageor
Policy
Comment Response ChangesProposed
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.
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
October2017
26
No. Consultee Pageor
Policy
Comment Response ChangesProposed
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.
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
October2017
27
No. Consultee Pageor
Policy
Comment Response ChangesProposed
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
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
October2017
28
No. Consultee Pageor
Policy
Comment Response ChangesProposed
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
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
October2017
29
No. Consultee Pageor
Policy
Comment Response ChangesProposed
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
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
October2017
30
No. Consultee Pageor
Policy
Comment Response ChangesProposed
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.
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
October2017
31
No. Consultee Pageor
Policy
Comment Response ChangesProposed
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.
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
October2017
32
No. Consultee Pageor
Policy
Comment Response ChangesProposed
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.
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
October2017
33
No. Consultee Pageor
Policy
Comment Response ChangesProposed
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
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
October2017
34
No. Consultee Pageor
Policy
Comment Response ChangesProposed
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.
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
October2017
35
No. Consultee Pageor
Policy
Comment Response ChangesProposed
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
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
October2017
36
No. Consultee Pageor
Policy
Comment Response ChangesProposed
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
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
October2017
37
No. Consultee Pageor
Policy
Comment Response ChangesProposed
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
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
October2017
38
No. Consultee Pageor
Policy
Comment Response ChangesProposed
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
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
October2017
39
No. Consultee Pageor
Policy
Comment Response ChangesProposed
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
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
October2017
40
No. Consultee Pageor
Policy
Comment Response ChangesProposed
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
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
October2017
41
No. Consultee Pageor
Policy
Comment Response ChangesProposed
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
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
October2017
42
No. Consultee Pageor
Policy
Comment Response ChangesProposed
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
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
October2017
43
No. Consultee Pageor
Policy
Comment Response ChangesProposed
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
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
October2017
44
No. Consultee Pageor
Policy
Comment Response ChangesProposed
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
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
October2017
45
No. Consultee Pageor
Policy
Comment Response ChangesProposed
(viaWard
Hadaway)
NPshouldincludeaninsetboundaryforStannington
Stationwhichamongstotherthingswouldobviatea
needforareview.
NeighbourhoodPlan
mustbeingeneral
conformitywithstrategic
policiesinthe
DevelopmentPlan.The
CoreStrategyisnotpart
oftheDevelopmentPlan
andhasbeen
withdrawn.Althoughit
isgoodpracticetobe
alignedtoemerging
strategicpolicy,theNP
cannotinanyevent,
altergreenbelt
boundaries.
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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.
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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.
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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
traffic,broadband,telephoneconnectionandriskofsewerflooding.
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
October2017
49
Thespecialqualitiesanduniquecharacterwillbedamagedbynewhousingduetotheremovalofagriculturalfieldsfor
development.
IdonotagreethatStanningtonStationhastherightinfrastructureofnewhousingdevelopment.Theroadcannotbewidened,a
footpathislackinginpartsandfutureroadconnectionsbroughtaboutbyhousingdevelopmentwillcreatetrafficproblemsand
increasedangerintoanalreadysub-standardroadthatisnotwellmaintained.
28 Yes/No WedonotagreethatStanningtonStationRoadhastherightinfrastructurefornewhousingdevelopment.Wehaveissueswith
traffic,broadband,telephoneconnectionandriskofsewerflooding.
Thespecialqualitiesanduniquecharacterwillbedamagedbynewhousingduetotheremovalofagriculturalfieldsfor
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
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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
traffic,broadband,telephoneconnectionandriskofsewerflooding.
Thespecialqualitiesanduniquecharacterwillbedamagedbynewhousingduetotheremovalofagriculturalfieldsfor
development.
*Noteimportantworksinvision:
Countryside
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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.
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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.
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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.
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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
infrequentlybyresidents.Weonlyhavesmallemploymentopportunities.
17-20,27,
28,33,34,
36-40,42,
43
No.Idon’tbelieveStanningtonStationRoadissustainable,wedonothaveagoodbusservices,thefarmshopisexpensiveandisonlyused
infrequentlybyresidents.Weonlyhavesmallemploymentopportunities.
23 No–StationRdisaverybusyroadwithspeedingtrafficparticularatthelevelcrossing.Poorpavements,poorstreetlightingandnocrossings.Itis
unsuitableforchildren,oldpeople,theinfirm,pedestriansandcyclists.
24 OnStationRoadYes,Iasaresidentarehappywiththelimitedbusservicelessbusescomingdowntheroad,farmshopoffersagoodrangeandtwo
rivalgaragesveryluckyweare.
25 StanningtonVillage,StMarys&HepscottParkarepossiblyright–StanningtonStationnotbecauseitsalignedalongabusythroughroute.
26 ThepossibilitiesofmorehouseshencemoretransportonStationRoadbringingproblems!
29 Twooftheproposedsettlementscouldonlyaccommodateverylimiteddevelopment.
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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?
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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.
Ref Doyouagreewiththisobjective?
1-9,11-12,15-20,
22,24-28,31-34,
36-43
Yes
10 Proposal1Yes
Proposal2Yes
Proposal3Why?
Proposal4Yes
Proposal5Ishisnecessary?
13 No
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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.
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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.
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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.
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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)
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
October2017
63
CONCLUSIONS:Children'splayarea(atStMary's)Smallshop/pharmacyatSt.Mary'sandStannington,transportprovision/busshelters
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
October2017
64
Objective3:NaturalEnvironment:Ensurethecountryside/landscapesintheParishtoretainthe‘rural’feelofthearea,whilstrecognisingthatthecountrysideisaliving,working,place.
Ref Doyouagreewiththisobjective?
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.
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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%)
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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.
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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.
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
October2017
68
Conclusions:Tomaintainthe'rural'and'agricultural'feelofStanningtonStation,doglitter,accesstocountryside/footpaths/pavements,landscapinginnew
development
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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%)
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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.
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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.
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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.
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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.
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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.
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
October2017
75
Objective6:TrafficandTransport:ReducethedetrimentaleffectthattraffichasonresidentsandbusinessesintheParish,whilstseekingimprovementstolocalnetworks,non-trafficnetworksandpublictransportprovision.
Ref Doyouagreewiththisobjective?
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.
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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%)
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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
StanningtonStationRoad.
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*
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
October2017
78
12 AskArrivatore-directMorpeth-NewcastleandNewcastle–Morpethbusesintothevillageoratleastdowntotheroundabouts.
15 Busserviceapriorityotherwiseitwillbewithdrawn.
17 WewanttoseeproposalsforreducingtrafficonStanningtonStationRoad,notproposalsforabypassforStanningtonVillageandmorehousing
developmentforus,whichwecannotsupportwithcurrentinfrastructure.
WewanttosupportalinkroadbetweenStobhill–LoansdeanandforafourwayjunctionatCliftonorWhaltonRoadtohelpdiverttrafficawayfrom
StanningtonStationRoad.
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.
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
October2017
79
EffectivespeedmanagementisneededonStationRoad–itisastraight(fast)busylinkbetween2Aclassroadswithhousesandpavementrightnext
toheavylorries.Peoplewithprams,horseriders,&disabledpeopleonmobilityscootersusethesepaths,oh,&you&me.
26 WehavecurrentproblemswithtrafficonStationRoad,whatweneedishelptoreducenumbersofvehiclesusingtheroad.
27 WewanttoseeproposalsforreducingtrafficonStanningtonStationRoad,notproposalsforabypassforStanningtonVillageandmorehousing
developmentforus,whichwecannotsupportwithcurrentinfrastructure.
WewanttosupportalinkroadbetweenStobhill–LoansdeanandforafourwayjunctionatCliftonorWhaltonRoadtohelpdiverttrafficawayfrom
StanningtonStationRoad.
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,
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
October2017
80
HepscottParketc.Additionallyithasabusymain-linelevelcrossing(over100trains/day).TheParishCouncilcontinuallyhighlightconcerns
regardingtrafficsafety,speedandcongestiononStationRoad.Weneedaninfrastructurethatreducestrafficandimprovessafetyontheroad.
37 WewanttoseeproposalsforreducingtrafficonStanningtonStationRoad,notproposalsforabypassforStanningtonVillageandmorehousing
developmentforus,whichwecannotsupportwithcurrentinfrastructure.
WewanttosupportalinkroadbetweenStobhill–LoansdeanandforafourwayjunctionatCliftonorWhaltonRoadtohelpdiverttrafficawayfrom
StanningtonStationRoad.
Inorderto“reducethedetrimentaleffectthattraffichasonresidents....”wecannotallowanincreaseoftrafficonStanningtonStationbyincreasing
thepopulation.Especiallybybuildingneartotherailwaycrossing.Thecrossingsarepotentiallyhazardouswiththecurrentnumberofvehiclesusing
theroad.
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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.
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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.
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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%)
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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.
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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.
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
October2017
87
APPENDIXE:VISIONANDOBJECTIVESCONSULTATIONMATERIAL
CONSULTATIONSTATEMENT:STANNINGTONPARISHNEIGHBOURHOODPLAN–OCTOBER2017
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!(((