Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Consultation point: Green Belt Full Name

Sir or Madam

Sir or Madam

Company / Organisation (if applicable) Trustees of the Sleekburn Estate

Dysart Developments

Schedule of comments and responses

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Sub-section title ID

Comments

Council's response

Ms Karen Read

Signet Planning

10068

Despite the long proposed strategic extension to the Green Belt at Morpeth, we would question whether this remains the right approach. The starting point for the Council in considering any changes to the Green Belt boundary is the latest guidance given in NPPF. At paragraph 82 it states new Green Belt boundaries should only be established in exceptional circumstances, for example when planning for larger scale developments such as new settlements or major urban extensions. If proposing a new Green Belt, local planning authorities should: Demonstrate why normal planning and development management policies would not be adequate; Set out whether any major changes in circumstances have made the adoption of this exceptional measure necessary; Show what the consequences of the proposal would be for sustainable development; Demonstrate the necessity for the Green Belt and its consistency with local plans for adjoining areas; and Show how the Green Belt would meet the other objectives of the framework. We would question whether the strategic extension to the Green Belt at Morpeth remains the right approach with reference to the five bullet points above, in particular the second and fourth. There is very limited evidence presented in the Issues and Options Core Strategy to demonstrate the proposed strategic extension meets the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy. Despite the extension being long proposed the Council should not simply roll forward a policy from the Northumberland County and National Park Joint Structure Plan without giving full consideration and setting out a fully justified case. Importantly if the Council chooses to continue with the alteration, it is essential when submitting the Core Strategy for examination it is considered 'sound' in that it is justified with the plan being the most appropriate strategy, when considered against reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence. If the Council continue with the review of the Green Belt it must be clearly demonstrated that the new boundaries take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development as required by paragraph 84 of the NPPF. To do this, the Council must review the boundaries of those settlements which would be covered by Green Belt to ensure that sites are identified for development to achieve their long term sustainability. To ensure that settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt

Comment noted. The Council's view is that the Green Belt extension around Morpeth was established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5. Through the Core Strategy the council is now going through the process of defining boundaries in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 85. In relation to time constraints in NPPF paragraph 215 it should be noted that NPPF refers only to "less" weight being given, subject to the plan's consistency with NPPF. Given that the Core Strategy is seeking conformity with NPPF; preparation of the Core Strategy is moving forward the implementation of Policy S5; and NPPF paragraph 216 allows for weight to be given to relevant policies in emerging plans it would seem that there is no need at present for an up to date review of the proposed Green Belt extension.

Ms Karen Read

Signet Planning

10070

Green Belt

Green Belt

can accommodate appropriate development, the Councils Delivery Development Plan Document needs to be rolled forward alongside the Core Strategy to determine whether the proposed spatial approach set out at paragraph 9.14 meets the requirements of the NPPF or whether the approach is for all tiers of settlements to be excluded from the Green Belt, with a settlement limit being defined, and with any proposed development subject to normal development management policies. Despite the long proposed strategic extension to the Green Belt at Morpeth, we would question whether this remains the right approach. The starting point for the Council in considering any changes to the Green Belt boundary is the latest guidance given in NPPF. At paragraph 82 it states new Green Belt boundaries should only be established in exceptional circumstances, for example when planning for larger scale developments such as new settlements or major urban extensions. If proposing a new Green Belt, local planning authorities should: Demonstrate why normal planning and development management policies would not be adequate; Set out whether any major changes in circumstances have made the adoption of this exceptional measure necessary; Show what the consequences of the proposal would be for sustainable development; Demonstrate the necessity for the Green Belt and its consistency with local plans for adjoining areas; and Show how the Green Belt would meet the other objectives of the framework. We would question whether the strategic extension to the Green Belt at Morpeth remains the right approach with reference to the five bullet points above, in particular the second and fourth. There is very limited evidence presented in the Issues and Options Core Strategy to demonstrate the proposed strategic extension meets the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy. Despite the extension being long proposed the Council should not simply roll forward a policy from the Northumberland County and National Park Joint Structure Plan without giving full consideration and setting out a fully justified case. Importantly if the Council chooses to continue with the alteration, it is essential when submitting the Core Strategy for examination it is considered 'sound' in that it is justified with the plan being the most appropriate strategy, when considered against reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence. If the Council continue with the review of the Green Belt it must be clearly demonstrated that the new boundaries take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development as required by paragraph 84 of the NPPF. To do this, the Council must review the boundaries of those settlements which would be covered by Green Belt to ensure that sites are identified for development to achieve their long term

Page 1

Comment noted. The Council's view is that the Green Belt extension around Morpeth was established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5. Through the Core Strategy the council is now going through the process of defining boundaries in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 85. In relation to time constraints in NPPF paragraph 215 it should be noted that NPPF refers only to "less" weight being given, subject to the plan's consistency with NPPF. Given that the Core Strategy is seeking conformity with NPPF; preparation of the Core Strategy is moving forward the implementation of Policy S5; and NPPF paragraph 216 allows for weight to be given to relevant policies in emerging plans it would seem that there is no need at present for an up to date review of the proposed Green Belt extension.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Consultation point: Green Belt Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Mr Morris Muter

Millhouse Developments

Mr Daniel Elvin

Harworth Estates

Ms Bethan Ellis

Schedule of comments and responses

Agent Name (if applicable)

Ms Karen Read

Agent Details (if applicable)

Signet Planning

Comment Sub-section title ID

10071

Green Belt

9370

Green Belt

12099

Green Belt

Comments

To ensure that settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt can accommodate appropriate development, the Councils Delivery Development Plan Document needs to be rolled forward alongside the Core Strategy to determine whether the proposed spatial approach set out at paragraph 9.14 meets the requirements of the NPPF or whether the approach is for all tiers of settlements to be excluded from the Green Belt, with a settlement limit being defined, and with any proposed development subject to normal development management policies. Despite the long proposed strategic extension to the Green Belt at Morpeth, we would question whether this remains the right approach. The starting point for the Council in considering any changes to the Green Belt boundary is the latest guidance given in NPPF. At paragraph 82 it states new Green Belt boundaries should only be established in exceptional circumstances, for example when planning for larger scale developments such as new settlements or major urban extensions. If proposing a new Green Belt, local planning authorities should: Demonstrate why normal planning and development management policies would not be adequate; Set out whether any major changes in circumstances have made the adoption of this exceptional measure necessary; Show what the consequences of the proposal would be for sustainable development; Demonstrate the necessity for the Green Belt and its consistency with local plans for adjoining areas; and Show how the Green Belt would meet the other objectives of the framework. We would question whether the strategic extension to the Green Belt at Morpeth remains the right approach with reference to the five bullet points above, in particular the second and fourth. There is very limited evidence presented in the Issues and Options Core Strategy to demonstrate the proposed strategic extension meets the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy. Despite the extension being long proposed the Council should not simply roll forward a policy from the Northumberland County and National Park Joint Structure Plan without giving full consideration and setting out a fully justified case. Importantly if the Council chooses to continue with the alteration, it is essential when submitting the Core Strategy for examination it is considered 'sound' in that it is justified with the plan being the most appropriate strategy, when considered against reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence. If the Council continue with the review of the Green Belt it must be clearly demonstrated that the new boundaries take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development as required by paragraph 84 of the NPPF. To do this, the Council must review the boundaries of those settlements which would be covered by Green Belt to ensure that sites are identified for development to achieve their long term sustainability. To ensure that settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt can accommodate appropriate development, the Councils Delivery Development Plan Document needs to be rolled forward alongside the Core Strategy to determine whether the proposed spatial approach set out at paragraph 9.14 meets the requirements of the NPPF or whether the approach is for all tiers of settlements to be excluded from the Green Belt, with a settlement limit being defined, and with any proposed development subject to normal development management policies. Harworth Estates fully support the exclusion of the Stobswood former Surface Mine from the Green Belt allocation. The purpose of the Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl and protect the countryside. The site forms part of the Blue Sky initiative which seeks to provide an extensive recreational area. I object to the proposals to allow housing on the Green Belt because: these policies are contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework which attaches great importance to Green Belts the resulting urban sprawl will undermine the Green Belt's characteristic openness and permanence Green Belt's assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the reuse of brownfield sites; the plans fail to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt for amenity, recreation and biodiversity the large areas of 'safeguarded' land for future housing will exacerbate the urban sprawl and loss of village/settlement identity the plans will cause irreparable harm to wildlife habitats and put endangered species at risk. I object to proposals to allow housing on [various Newcastle sites] and Ponteland at Fields behind Fox Court. Permitting house development on these sites will lead to: loss of ecologically valuable land urban sprawl and encroachment on the countryside severe traffic congestion the loss of semi-rural village/settlement identities stress on local schools and other facilities increase in crime overcrowding

Page 2

Council's response

Comment noted. The council is of the view that the existing boundaries have been established and defined through regional, structure plan and local policies, while the extension to the Green Belt around Morpeth has been established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5. The council is now going through the process of defining boundaries as described in NPPF paragraph 85.

Support noted particularly in relation to Stobswood Opencast Site.

The view that no Green Belt boundary review should take place around Ponteland is noted. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Consultation point: Green Belt Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Comment Sub-section title ID

Comments

Council's response

Ms Megan Ellis

12177

Green Belt

The view that no Green Belt boundary review should take place around Ponteland is noted. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Ms Carys Ellis

12182

Green Belt

I object to the proposals to allow housing on the Green Belt because: these policies are contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework which attaches great importance to Green Belts the resulting urban sprawl will undermine the Green Belt's characteristic openness and permanence Green Belt's assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the reuse of brownfield sites; the plans fail to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt for amenity, recreation and biodiversity the large areas of 'safeguarded' land for future housing will exacerbate the urban sprawl and loss of village/settlement identity the plans will cause irreparable harm to wildlife habitats and put endangered species at risk. I object to proposals to allow housing on [various Newcastle sites] and Ponteland at Fields behind Fox Court. Permitting house development on these sites will lead to: loss of ecologically valuable land urban sprawl and encroachment on the countryside severe traffic congestion the loss of semi-rural village/settlement identities stress on local schools and other facilities loss of privacy on family home I object to the proposals to allow housing on the Green Belt because: these policies are

Mr & Mrs Ken & Kim Alexander

457

Green Belt

I wish to protest strongly to any further greenbelt land development.

The view that no Green Belt boundary review should take place around Ponteland is noted. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Mr Robert Ramsay

2973

Green Belt

In ponteland schools and industrial estates should move into the green belt and release brownfield land for affordable housing and housing for elderly residents. School to Rotary Way and Industrial estate to near Police HQ. Some more land between A696 and bypass should be used for employment opportunities.

Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Mrs Joanna Lumsden

12614

Green Belt

In principle the peripheral Green Belt surrounding Ponteland should not be reduced at all. However in this note I make the case specifically for the strip of farmland enclosed on the east side of Darras Hall by Callerton Lane and on the north, west and south by Darras Hall Estate. Given the intended encroachment westwards by Newcastle in the direction of Pontelandit is ever more important to conserve the Green Belt to the east of Ponteland in order to protect the Darras Hall area from urban intrusion It is also noteworthy that a stream flowing northwards on the westand north sides of this field is within the Darras Hall land, at least for nos. 1,2,3,4 and 5 of Callerton Court and should remain untampered with in order to ensure drainage and amenity, including reducing flood risk. There was a suggestion at a recent Lugano presentation about Birney Hill that this "existing water course" might be used as flood relief for their proposed development there. The boggy nature of this field adjacent to the Callerton/Rotary roundabout would also make the field unsuitable for housing. General perspective I would observe also that the proposed changes in the County Plan re Green Belt appear to have precipitated an abrupt increase in aggressive housing plans by developers in the Ponteland area. It is not desirable for such schemes, on such a scale, to be encouraged,or permitted to take place unrestricted. Retention of current Green Beltwill help to control such exploitation and retain the present environmental and residential qualities of the place.

he view that no Green Belt boundary review T should take place around Ponteland is noted. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Schedule of comments and responses

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

The view that no Green Belt boundary review contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework which attaches great importance to should take place around Ponteland is noted. Green Belts the resulting urban sprawl will undermine the Green Belt's characteristic Evidence of the need for change will be required openness and permanence Green Belt's assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the to support any boundary changes proposed via reuse of brownfield sites; the plans fail to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt for the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or amenity, recreation and biodiversity the large areas of 'safeguarded' land for future housing allocations stage Development Plan Document. will exacerbate the urban sprawl and loss of village/settlement identity the plans will cause There will be opportunities to discuss any new irreparable harm to wildlife habitats and put endangered species at risk. I object to proposals at the relevant stage. proposals to allow housing on [various Newcastle sites] and Ponteland at Fields behind Fox Court. Permitting house development on these sites will lead to: loss of ecologically valuable land urban sprawl and encroachment on the countryside severe traffic congestion the loss of semi-rural village/settlement identities stress on local schools and other facilities

Page 3

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Consultation point: Green Belt Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable) Mickley Clients

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Sub-section title ID

Comments

Council's response

Ms Jo Robison

Smiths Gore

9180

Green Belt

Mickley/Mickely Square is currently a settlement 'washed over' by the greenbelt. We consider that the scale and nature of the settlement means that it no longer serves the purpose of being within the greenbelt and would be more appropriately be 'inset' within the greenbelt, with an allowance for a boundary review. We seek that some elements of our clients land (see attached plan) at Mickley/Mickely Square can be considered as part of any future detailed greenbelt review and would welcome further discussions with you in this respect as part of the plan preparation process.

Support for a Green Belt boundary review at a localised level around Mickley/Mickley Square is noted. As well as considering the specific sites in the SHLAA Review, evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

469

Green Belt

Much of the report says it is important to maintain the existing green belt, but I was alarmed The view that no Green Belt boundary review to note a suggestion that the green belt around Ponteland could be reviwed. The green belt should take place around Ponteland is noted. around Ponteland must be protected Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

10773

Green Belt

NNPA has no comments on the Northumberland Green Belt.

No response required.

Mr Theo van Looij

Northumberland National Park Authority Newcastle City Council

9036

Green Belt

Mr Alan Hunter

English Heritage

7514

Green Belt

No specific comments, generally supportive to the suggested approach to managing the Green Belt Paragraph 9.1 helpfully acknowledges that one of the purposes of Green Belt designation is to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. Paragraph 9.2 should include an analysis of the extent to which existing Green Belt has achieved the above purpose.

5750

Green Belt

Support for general approach to Green Belt noted. Comment relating to the setting and special character of historic towns in the Green Belt is noted. The council would welcome further discussion with English Heritage on how the existing Green Belt and proposed extension should achieve the purpose of preserving the setting and special character of historic towns, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 80. The view that no Green Belt boundary review should take place is noted. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Miss Jennifer Hardy

Ms Tammy Adams

Mr Robert McLean

Schedule of comments and responses

The Green Belt to remain intact.

Page 4

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Consultation point: Green Belt Full Name

Mr John Jameson

Mr Peter Fletcher

Company / Organisation (if applicable) Miller Homes Limited North East

Haydon Bridge & Haydon Parish Development Trust

Ms Jean Rowntree

Schedule of comments and responses

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Sub-section title ID

Comments

Council's response

Ms Sandra Manson

Signet Planning

9959

Green Belt

Comment noted. The Council's view is that the Green Belt extension around Morpeth was established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5. Through the Core Strategy the council is now going through the process of defining boundaries in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 85. In relation to time constraints in NPPF paragraph 215 it should be noted that NPPF refers only to "less" weight being given, subject to the plan's consistency with NPPF. Given that the Core Strategy is seeking conformity with NPPF; preparation of the Core Strategy is moving forward the implementation of Policy S5; and NPPF paragraph 216 allows for weight to be given to relevant policies in emerging plans it would seem that there is no need at present for an up to date review of the proposed Green Belt extension.

9806

Green Belt

The starting point for the Council in considering any changes to the Green Belt boundary is the latest guidance given in NPPF. At paragraph 82 it states new Green Belt boundaries should only be established in exceptional circumstances, for example when planning for larger scale developments such as new settlements or major urban extensions. If proposing a new Green Belt, local planning authorities should: Demonstrate why normal planning and development management policies would not be adequate; Set out whether any major changes in circumstances have made the adoption of this exceptional measure necessary; Show what the consequences of the proposal would be for sustainable development; Demonstrate the necessity for the Green Belt and its consistency with local plans for adjoining areas; and Show how the Green Belt would meet the other objectives of the framework.  Despite the long proposed strategic extension to the Green Belt at Morpeth, we would question whether this remains the right approach with reference to the five bullet points above. Do the circumstances in which the Green Belt extension was originally conceived remain relevant? There is very limited evidence presented in the Issues and Options Core Strategy to demonstrate the proposed strategic extension meets the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy. The Council should not simply roll forward a policy from the Northumberland County and National Park Joint Structure Plan without giving full consideration and setting out a fully justified case. Importantly if the Council chooses to continue with the alteration, it is essential when submitting the Core Strategy for examination it is considered ‘sound’ in that it is justified — with the plan being the most appropriate strategy, when considered against reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence.  If the Council continue with the review of the Green Belt it must be clearly demonstrated that the new boundaries take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development as required by paragraph 84 of the NPPF. To do this, the Council must review the settlement limits to ensure that sites are identified for development to achieve the long term sustainability of those areas. The Core Strategy should not restrict opportunities to develop community uses and affordable housing within each of the settlement tiers identified, in addition to addressing market need. Our client has concerns regarding Longhorsley in that the Council has not shown any evidence of reviewing the now dated Structure Plan Policy which promotes the strategic extension to the Green Belt including this settlement. To ensure that settlements within the existing and Thirdly, and linked to the second point, rural communities appear to be protected by green belt policy. However, Haydon Bridge does not receive such protection in terms of controlling development.

458

Green Belt

You wrote, inviting us to comment on the Northumberland Local Development Plan. The countryside character arises from the diversity of the landscape. But this is being eroded. When the Plan is reviewed, we feel the most vital issue is the retention of the Green Belt. It must not be slackened to allow expansion, but kept to protect the character and rural distinctiveness of the countryside. Any breach of the Green Belt means this rural distinctiveness will lose out to sprawl. More building will lead to the spreading blandness that is already creeping into our villages, eliminating the character that defines them. Land within the Green Belt should not be considered for housing developments. There are hundreds of empty houses in England and it would make sense to use these, rather than build on Green Belt land. Any new development must be sympathetic to its surroundings and care must be taken to prevent developers exploiting higher density purely for profit. Blandness impoverishes everyones life. All it takes is a miserable designed housing development.

The view that no Green Belt boundary review should take place is noted. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Page 5

Concern that development around Haydon Bridge is not constrained by Green Belt Policy is noted. Previous Development Plan Documents and the Core Strategy Issues and Options document have not identified Haydon Bridge as close enough to the Tyne & Wear City Region to justify extending the Green Belt around it.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Consultation point: Green Belt Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Mr John Lumsden

Schedule of comments and responses

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Sub-section title ID

Comments

Council's response

12617

In principle the peripheral Green Belt surrounding Ponteland should not be reduced at all. However in this note I make the case specifically for the strip of farmland enclosed on the east side of Darras Hall by Callerton Lane and on the north, west and south by Darras Hall Estate. Given the intended encroachment westwards by Newcastle in the direction of Pontelandit is ever more important to conserve the Green Belt to the east of Ponteland in order to protect the Darras Hall area from urban intrusion It is also noteworthy that a stream flowing northwards on the westand north sides of this field is within the Darras Hall land, at least for nos. 1,2,3,4 and 5 of Callerton Court and should remain untampered with in order to ensure drainage and amenity, including reducing flood risk. There was a suggestion at a recent Lugano presentation about Birney Hill that this "existing water course" might be used as flood relief for their proposed development there. The boggy nature of this field adjacent to the Callerton/Rotary roundabout would also make the field unsuitable for housing. General perspective I would observe also that the proposed changes in the County Plan re Green Belt appear to have precipitated an abrupt increase in aggressive housing plans by developers in the Ponteland area. It is not desirable for such schemes, on such a scale, to be encouraged,or permitted to take place unrestricted. Retention of current Green Beltwill help to control such exploitation and retain the present environmental and residential qualities of the place.

The view that no Green Belt boundary review should take place around Ponteland is noted. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Green Belt

Page 6

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Consultation point: General extent and boundaries Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Sub-section title ID

Mr W A Cowan

2349 General extent and boundaries

Mr Martin Marsh

708 General extent and boundaries

Harworth Estates & UK Mr Stephen Stoney Coal

Wardell Armstrong LLP

8256 General extent and boundaries

Mr Robert McLean

5747 General extent and boundaries

Mr David Ord

6249 General extent and boundaries

Schedule of comments and responses

Comments

Council's response

AfRM welcomes the proposal to extend the Green Belt and we anticipate that this proposal will be supported by the vast majority living in Morpeth and surrounding areas. The purpose of the Green belt is well defined so as to: Preserve the special setting and character of Morpeth Prevent Morpeth merging with neighbouring settlements Assist regeneration of main settlements Safeguard the countryside from encroachment This being so we are firmly of the view that wind turbines are wholly incompatible with the concept and purposes of a designated Green Belt. All wind turbines manufacture electricity on an industrial scale. All turbines connected to the National Grid generate income and must be regarded as ‘industrial ventures'. Furthermore, the associated road and substation infrastructure associated with wind farms have a detrimental effect on farmland and the landscape generally. Connections to the National Grid inevitably result in more structures and networks of overhead cables which are very intrusive. Since an extension to the existing Morpeth Green Belt is proposed by NCC and is likely to receive wide support, NCC must not allow this vital concept to be devalued by approving wind farms in the area of the proposed extension to the Green Belt. To do so would wholly negate the important value of the Green Belt, making nonsense of the NCC Core Strategy policies. Â

Support noted. Also noted is the view that wind turbines are incompatible with the concept and purposes of a designated Green Belt and, as with all issues, the Core Strategy must reflect national policy and guidance, which does not currently support this view. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), March 2012, paragraph 91 states that "When located in the Green Belt, elements of many renewable energy projects will comprise inappropriate development. In such cases developers will need to demonstrate very special circumstances if projects are to proceed. Such very special circumstances may include the wider environmental benefits associated with increased production of energy from renewable sources."•NPPF paragraph 97, bullet point 3, footnote 17 requires Local Authorities , in "assessing the likely impacts of potential wind energy development when identifying suitable areas, and in determining planning applications for such development" to follow the approach set out in the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) and National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3). EN1 paragraph 2.6.56 states that "Although offshore wind farms themselves will not have a direct impact on Green Belts, it is possible that some elements of these projects may be proposed on Green Belt land, such as electricity network infrastructure, and comprise Existing Green Belt boundaries should always be maintained, unless there is overwhelming The view that no Green Belt boundary review evidence of a need which cannot be satisfied elsewhere, in order not to destroy the should take place is noted. Evidence of the need concept. for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage. For the total avoidance of doubt, the site of the Blue Sky major regeneration opportunity on the former opencast sites at Stobswood, Steadsburn and Maidens Hall should be totally excluded from Green Belt consideration in that the land is previously developed by definition of the major mineral extraction operation. Any relevance for Green Belt consideration is strongly opposed. Green Belt boundaries around Ponteland should remain as is. No incursions into Green Belt are either needed or desireable.

Support noted particularly in relation to Stobswood Opencast Site.

Green Belt boundaries should not not be altered unless there are exceptional circumstances and there needs to be full public consultation.  The Green Belt surrounding Hexham protects the character of the town, wildlife corridors, landscape value, agricultural farmland  (refer to Tynedale Council Local Development Framework adopted in 2007) and should not be reviewed.  The conservation area in Hexham was recently altered and residents living in the west end of Hexham were unaware that the boundary had changed and their properties had been moved out of the conservation area. Â

The view that no Green Belt boundary review should take place around Hexham is noted. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Page 7

The view that no Green Belt boundary review should take place around Ponteland is noted. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Consultation point: General extent and boundaries Full Name

Mr Stephen Litherland

Company / Agent Name (if Organisation (if applicable) applicable) Bellway Homes Limited

Mrs Susan Cansdale

Schedule of comments and responses

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Sub-section title ID 8380 General extent and boundaries

4936 General extent and boundaries

Comments

Council's response

In addition to the generic representations submitted by Bellway Homes this document is submitted in accordance with Section 9 (Green Belt) of the Core Strategy, which states at paragraph 9.6: 'It is recognised that, elsewhere, a localised review of the Green Belt may be required to ensure the overall vision is achieved. The Council proposes that this be done as part of the Core Strategy process and would welcome early submission of potential Green Belt boundary alterations recognising that in some instances this may be necessary to ensure development needs can be met. ' Bellway Homes have an interest in land towards the north of Wylam, as shown on the attached map. The land holding is located towards the north of Wylam and extends to approximately 29ha (70acres) in tot al. This is shown in red on the attached map. Bellway Homes have identified approximately 8ha (20 acres) as being suitable for medium and longer term housing development. This is shown in green on the attached map. At an average density of 25/30 dwellings per hectare this would equate to a net development of approximately 200/240 dwellings which could be phased over the forthcoming plan period. The emerging Core Strategy, at table 5.4, identifies Wylam as a 'Tier 3' settlement. This is broadly consistent with the extant Tynedale Core Strategy which identifies the settlement as a 'Service Village'. Drawing on the assessments made in both the existing and emerging Core Strategy it would be fair to assert that Wylam is a sustainable settlement in its own right. Additional housing development is therefore likely to be required in order to help sustain key services such as shops and schools. Wylam is different to some other settlements identified as 'Tier 3' in that it is conveniently located for access to Prudhoe, a settlement identified by the emerging Core Strategy as a key hub for education, healthcare, housing employment and retail (Tier I ). This adds further weight to the assertion above that housing development in Wylam would be sustainable. In physical terms the land identified by these representations is well located to the existing residential properties towards the south and has good road frontage for access. It has no obvious physical constraints to development. The site is however currently situated within the Green Belt. Having regards to the latest Northumberland Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA (20 12)) it is clear that there are no significant sites either within or surrounding the existing settlement capable of accommodating housing growth. In this instance it would therefore appear that a review of the existing Green Belt around Wylam will be required as the Core Strategy progresses. Bellway Homes intend to undertake a full It is absolutely right that towns and villages in Northumberland should not be allowed to sprawl into one another and ribbon development along highways should be discouraged. However, it is a fact that more new homes are needed and, like it or not, the government has set targets for the country. It would be a mistake to implement a blanket policy of 'washing over' entire settlements within the green belt. Each development proposal, large or small, should be judged on its own merit because imaginative use of small green areas can often be utilized attractively and effectively without detriment to the settlement as a whole. Â Where there are areas, out of sight from the highway, where adequate provision of roads and services already exist to service some new build within a natural boundary of hedges, banks and trees, these should be allowed. For example: Robson's Field adjacent to the west of Whitegates Estate in Longhorsley is the remnant of a field which was originally designated as Phase 3 of a comprehensive development requested by the Morpeth Borough Council Planners over 50 years ago. Roads and services were installed which are more than adequate for the provision of all three phases. Phases 1 & 2 have already been completed so it is right that sensitive and good quality development of Robson's Field and the Haining should be allowed because it will form a logical and natural boundary to the south west of the village. Ref: 3529 in the recently published SHLAA report this parcel of land was given the green classification with the comment: 'No prohibitive barriers to the development of the site'. It can discretely provide up to 40 more homes for which there is a ready market in this location. It will cause no more traffic congestion in the village, and will bring Longhorsley no closer to Morpeth than it already is which is the stated aim of the Greenbelt. Robson's Field is a 'green field' site, (arguably a 'brown field' site since it is the remnant of a field already developed), and for all those reasons, should not be included in the 'green belt'. Â

Support for a Green Belt boundary review at a localised level around Wylam , is noted. As well as considering the specific sites in the SHLAA Review, evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Page 8

Comment in relation to Green Belt restricting development is noted. However the council does not view the Green Belt as a tool to stop all development in smaller villages as demonstrated in the proposed development principles. SHLAA sites will be reviewed with due regard to national and local policies on Green Belt.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Consultation point: General extent and boundaries Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Mrs Joyce Casson

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Sub-section title ID 4715 General extent and boundaries

Mrs Pat Heard

27 General extent and boundaries

Comments

Council's response

Key priorities for consideration must be the preservation of playing fields and significant historic land use eg traditional orchards. Â Â

Comments relating suggested priorities for preserving playing fields and significant historic land use are noted. This issue is addressed in the Core Strategy chapter on green infrastructure. The Core Strategy must reflect National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), March 2012, paragraph 74, which states that playing fields should not be built on unless: an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the needs for which clearly outweigh the loss. Development on traditional orchards would also be considered inappropriate if it affected the openness of the This issue is to be addressed elsewhere in the Core Strategy in relation to green infrastructure.

Open space within town centres needs to maintained - just as much as greenbelt land between towns. Countryside can be within a town, not just around it!

Mr James Hopkins

Coriolis Energy

9446 General extent and boundaries

Para 9.3 It is a little misleading to state that a Green Belt extension around Morpeth is already established. The policy referring to it in the Northumberland County and National Park Structure Plan First Alteration (Saved Policy S5) is now around seven years old, and any evidence upon which it is based will be older; and there is no provision for structure plans to form a statutory tier of the development plan within the new planning system. The fact that an extension to the Green Belt ‘has been long proposed' is not therefore an appropriate basis for promotion of such an extension within this Core Strategy. Any such promotion should be based upon an evidenced, up-to-date consideration of the justification for an extension with due regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Ms Sue Howie

Northumberland and Newcastle Society

8458 General extent and boundaries

Para 9.6 indicates that some existing Green Belt boundaries may require alteration to ensure that development needs can be met. It is not clear to us where this exercise is going to end up. We suggest that the core strategy should respect green belt boundaries; if this makes it impossible to accommodate development, then there should be consultation on the specific case in a subsequent stage.

Schedule of comments and responses

Comment noted. The Council's view is that the Green Belt extension around Morpeth was established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5. Through the Core Strategy the council is now going through the process of defining boundaries in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 85. In relation to time constraints in NPPF paragraph 215 it should be noted that NPPF refers only to "less" weight being given, subject to the plan's consistency with NPPF. Given that the Core Para 9.4 The NPPF states that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered ‘in exceptional Strategy is seeking conformity with NPPF; circumstances', and that, where new Green Belts are proposed and boundaries are to be preparation of the Core Strategy is moving defined, a variety of criteria needs to be satisfied. We consider that these criteria have not forward the implementation of Policy S5; and demonstrably been met for the proposed Green Belt extension. For example, there appears NPPF paragraph 216 allows for weight to be to be insufficient evidence that the Green Belt extension will meet the four objectives stated given to relevant policies in emerging plans it in Paragraph 9.4, and that it is the only means by which these objectives can be met. In our would seem that there is no need at present for an up to date review of the proposed Green Belt view the ‘Northumberland Key Land Use Impact Study' is not sufficient in this respect. Whether Green Belt designation specifically is required for the planning purposes in extension. question is a crucial point, as reflected in NPPF paragraph 82, bullets 1 and 4 (and see also below).

Page 9

The view that no Green Belt boundary review should take place is noted. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Consultation point: General extent and boundaries Full Name

Comments

Council's response

7949 General extent and boundaries

Paragraph 9.3 should be reworded. Whilst it is acknowledged that the existing boundaries to the Green Belt have been established, the extension around Morpeth at this stage has not been established. Paragraph 9.4 makes reference to, but does not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances for the alteration of the Green Belt boundaries, in accordance with NPPF paragraph 83. The paragraph makes reference to policy S5 of the adopted Northumberland County and National Park Joint Structure Plan (July 2008). This policy provides only limited guidance for actually defining revised Green Belt boundaries. In accordance with paragraph 215 of the NPPF, JSP policy S5 can only be given full weight/consideration until 27th March 2013. It is considered that an up-to-date thorough Green Belt Review is required.

Mrs Carolyn Robinson

4650 General extent and boundaries

The Green Belt should be preserved and extended  around hexham.  The unique character of the town would be spoilt if the green belt were to be reduced.

Comment noted. The Council's view is that the Green Belt extension around Morpeth was established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5. Through the Core Strategy the council is now going through the process of defining boundaries in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 85. In relation to time constraints in NPPF paragraph 215 it should be noted that NPPF refers only to "less" weight being given, subject to the plan's consistency with NPPF. Given that the Core Strategy is seeking conformity with NPPF; preparation of the Core Strategy is moving forward the implementation of Policy S5; and NPPF paragraph 216 allows for weight to be given to relevant policies in emerging plans it would seem that there is no need at present for an up to date review of the proposed Green Belt The view that no Green Belt boundary review should take place around Hexham , unless it is to increase Green Belt, is noted. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Mr Chris Dowson

4571 General extent and boundaries

The greenbelt should not be to tight to village boundaries and should not be used as tool to Comment in relation to Green Belt restricting stop development in villages that have services such as a first school, post office, shop development is noted. However the council does etc... Agreed SHLAA sites should not be impacted by any changes to the greenbelt. not view the Green Belt as a tool to stop all development in smaller villages as demonstrated in the proposed development principles. SHLAA sites will be reviewed with due regard to national and local policies on Green Belt.

6886 General extent and boundaries

The proposed extension of the Green Belt will further destroy our rural communities. The Neighbourhood Plans should in themselves safeguard their communities from unrestricted sprawl and from neighbouring towns and villages from merging with one another. It appears the only winners to the extension of the Green Belt are the County Council. It will certainly lessen the work load for the Planning Authority but it will increase the bureaucracy that potential rural businesses will have to plough through, if they bother at all. No new houses will be allowed except in very exceptional circumstances. This probably means that applications from large developers, who are abletoaffordexpertconsultantsadviceandgoodlegal counsel, will get planning permission. It will take further control away from rural communities and allow the County Council yet more domination.

The view that no extension of the Green Belt boundary should take place around Morpeth is noted. However it should also be noted that it will still be possible to build new houses within the Green Belt, as long as development complies with national policy and the Core Strategy's development principles for the settlements. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

3252 General extent and boundaries

There appears to be no proposals regarding altering Green Belt Boundaries anywhere else in Northumberland other than Morpeth. To be consistent this should also be considered to ensure that the settlements within do not merge and to ensure an even spread of development in the County.

Comments noted in particular concern that settlements may merge with each other across the county. However it is considered that the major area of development pressure is associated with the Tyne & Wear City Region and therefore the only extension that may be justified is that around Morpeth, which increases the depth of the existing Tyne & Wear Green Belt.

Mr Chris Haggon

Ms Karen Carins

Company / Organisation (if applicable) TNEI Services Ltd

Stannington Parish Council

Mr Keith Butler

Schedule of comments and responses

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Sub-section title ID

Page 10

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Consultation point: General extent and boundaries Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Mr and Mrs Peter and Lorraine Richardson

Mr Tom Warde-Aldam

Nunwick Estate

Mr & Mrs Ken & Kim Alexander

Mr Phil Slater

Tommy's Field Allotments Association

Schedule of comments and responses

Mr Chris Offord

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Sub-section title ID

Comments

Council's response

1297 General extent and boundaries

there is a need for the green belt, but it must not be used as a tool to stop the growth of smaller villages by being to tight to the village

General support for the Green Belt and comments are noted. The council does not view the Green Belt as a tool to stop all development in smaller villages as demonstrated by the proposed development principles.

2733 General extent and boundaries

There is a need to cosider the existing Green Belt boundaries around Hexham in order for Support for a Green Belt boundary review at a the town to fulfil its key hub role. Land at the Hermitage, a contained area on the northern localised level around Hexham is noted. As well boundary of Hexham should be considered as part of this exercise. as considering the specific sites in the SHLAA Review, evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

741 General extent and boundaries

We agree wholeheartedly with the clear agreement (at the Consultation meeting core strategy 19 July - Ponteland) that under no circumstances should there be any development of any of our greenbelt - nor any changes in boundaries. People have chosen to live here because of the rural aspect and general nature of the village. No promises of extra sports facilities/shops/roads etc would make the destruction of our greenbelt more attractive to us. We do not need Ponteland to get bigger and any increase in housing should be based on real need not speculation, using brown field sites only. Needless to say we have, along with many others, signed a petition against any development by Lugano or Banks. It is clear to us that there was overwhelming support of our feelings at this meeting and we hope that you take this into serious consideration when finalising the core strategy.

The view that no Green Belt boundary review should take place around Ponteland is noted. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

9050 General extent and boundaries

We are a self managing organisation and our allotments are situated beside Dark Lane next to the new Dransfield development site, and is some 4 acres in size. We have around 200 members of both genders and of varying ages. We provide all the maintenances and improvements to the site our selves with no financial support from either County or Town Council level. Regarding the Core Strategy plans we are concerned that our site does not appear to be in either the Town boundary or the proposed green belt area nor do allotments figure in any of the recreation or healthy living facilities.We hope this is just an drafting error as we are well aware of the potential our site has for housing development. We have done all that we are able in terms of protecting the future of the allotments in that we have recently negotiated a 50 year lease with the Town Council and have been granted Statutory Status by the Secretary of State. We currently have a waiting list of 40 people wanting an allotment, which indicates a clear need within the Morpeth Town Council boundary. Growing ones own vegetables fits nicely with the current emphasis on both healthy eating and regular exercise.

Comment in relation to allotments is noted. The Core Strategy will address them in relation to green infrastructure recognising that good quality open space includes allotments for their "many benefits for urban and rural environments, as well as promoting social inclusion and community cohesion and health and well-being. In defining the detail of the inner Green Belt boundary around Morpeth due regard will be given to the location of your allotment, which is identified in the Core Strategy evidence base document, PPG17 openspace, sport and recreation assessment, May 2011.

Page 11

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Consultation point: General extent and boundaries Full Name

Atkinson, Newton, Parker, Thirlwell

Company / Organisation (if applicable) Land owners at Western Way, Darras Hall

Schedule of comments and responses

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Mr Michael Hepburn

Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners

Comment Sub-section title ID 7078 General extent and boundaries

Comments

Council's response

We welcome the Council's recognition that a localised review of the Green Belt will be required to ensure the vision for Northumberland is achieved. The Green Belt around Ponteland / Darras Hall has been in place since 1963. It is now due for a review in light of changed circumstances. We agree with the Council's view that the overriding need to deliver homes and employment in sustainable Tier 1 settlements such as Ponteland / Darras Hall constitutes the exceptional circumstances needed to justify a Green Belt boundary review. As requested, we formally propose our client's recommended approach to a localised Green Belt review in Ponteland / Darras Hall. Site and Surroundings Our client's site at Western Way (see appendix 1) represents an opportunity for a minor amendments to the Green Belt boundary that would enable the delivery of much needed new housing to improve the balance of the local housing stock meeting the requirement of younger families and the elderly. The site comprises around 1.8ha of unused land located on the south-west edge of Darras Hall and is bound by: • Western Way to the east • Residential properties to the north • A car maintenance and repair garage to the south, beyond which lies Stamfordham Road; and • Agricultural land to the west. The site currenty lies within the Green Belt as defined by the Castle Morpeth Local Plan (2003) and is adjacent to the Ponteland/Darras Hall Settlement Boundary (Policy C1), the Darras Hall Estate Housing Policy area (Policy PH2) and a landscape corridor (Policies C4 and PC3 (iv)). There are shops, services and a primary school (Darras Hall First School) located around 2km to the north-east of the site on Broadway. Eastbound and westbound bus services to Ponteland, Newcastle Airport, Kingston Park and Newcastle City Centre are accessible from bus stops located on Edge Hill and Stamfordham around 300m from the subject site. Suitability The DCLG's SHLAA Practice Guide (2007) (para 38) sets out the key issues to consider when assessing the suitability of a site to accommodate housing. These issues include: • Physical problems or limitations; • Potential impacts, including effect upon landscape features and conservation; and • Environmental conditions, which would be experienced by prospective residents. Looking at each of these issues in turn, the following conclusions can be drawn: Physical Problems or Limitations • The site can easily be accessed from Western Way with satisfactory visibility achieved. • Prospective residents will be able to access shops, services and school by foot, cycle and by bus, given the location of the site around 2km from these facilities. When travelling to Newcastle by car, residents would be

Support for a Green Belt boundary review at a localised level around Ponteland , is noted. As well as considering the specific sites in the SHLAA Review, evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Page 12

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Consultation point: Figure 9.1 - Green Belt in Northumberland Full Name

Councillor Jim Scott

Company / Organisation (if applicable) Ulgham Parish Council

Mr Chris Haggon

TNEI Services Ltd

Schedule of comments and responses

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Number ID

Title

Comments

5535 Figure 9.1

Green Belt in Northumberland

Figure 9.1 is unclear. Boundaries need to be better defined so is difficult to comment on this.

7959 Figure 9.1

Green Belt in Northumberland

Council's response

The map in Fig 9.1 is provided as a diagrammatic representation of the general extent of the Green Belt proposed in saved Structure Plan Policy S5. A more detailed proposed definition of boundaries, "... using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent" is provided in Fig 9.2. Due to the scale of the map the exact boundaries of the proposed Green Belt extension The map in Fig 9.1 is provided as a remain unclear at this stage. Further details are required. Paragraph 85 of the NPPF states diagrammatic representation of the general that when defining boundaries this should be done clearly "... using physical features that extent of the Green Belt proposed in saved are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent." Structure Plan Policy S5. A more detailed proposed definition of boundaries, "... using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent" is provided in Fig 9.2.

Page 13

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 38: Do you agree with the Council’s general approach to Green Belt? Full Name

Mr Alan A. Elrington

Company / Organisation (if applicable) Alan Elrington Associates Ltd

Mrs EI Hunter

Ord Parish Council

Sir or Madam

Northern Farmers & Landowners Group

Mr Peter Fletcher

Haydon Bridge & Haydon Parish Development Trust

Schedule of comments and responses

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Comments ID

Council's response

8570 3. Green Belt land in and around Ponteland should not be touched nor should its assessment as Green Belt land be reassessed. It was clear from the meeting that without doubt the most important issue to the villagers in attendance at the workshop. Ponteland is a lovely place to live because of the rural aspect and village feel. We can see no exceptional circumstances in Ponteland to re-assess the status of the Green Belt land in and surrounding Ponteland and then destroying this forever by the development of new housing. We as a generation must give consideration to the effect that the constant 4. If building is necessary in Ponteland surely development of brown field sites whilst more expensive and time consuming to develop is the correct way forward not only for the present but also for the future. Any future housing development in Ponteland should be restricted to brown field sites, should be small in number with a high percentage of affordable housing. We have an industrial estate which everyone admits is actually not fit for purpose and is located in the wrong place. I am confident that relocating these remaining businesses to areas around the airport industrial estate would be better for all concerned. 6. The development of Greenbelt sites SHLAA Site 3176 and/or Site 3010 would result in the village becoming one sprawling mass whereas now the housing at Cheviot View and Ridgeley Drive are separated from the village by green fields which both protects and enhances the charm and character of the village. 7. In addition, I do not believe Pontelands services and infrastructure could cope with the addition of the 400-500 new homes that it is proposed be built on these Sites. The A696 is the main road running through the middle of the village and traffic regularly backs up from the centre of the village to the middle of Cheviot View and also in the opposite direction from the Dobbies/Rotary Way roundabout. 9764 The proposed extension of the Green Belt will further destroy our rural communities. The Neighbourhood Plans should in themselves safeguard their communities from unrestricted sprawl and from neighbouring towns and villages from merging with one another. It appears the only winners to the extension of the Green Belt are the County Council. It will certainly lessen the work load for the Planning Authority but it will increase the bureaucracy that potential rural businesses will have to plough through, if they bother at all. No new houses will be allowed except in very exceptional circumstances. This probably means that applications from large developers, who are able to afford expert consultants advice and good legal counsel, will get planning permission. It will take further control away from rural communities and allow the County Council yet more domination. Mr Angus CollingwoodCameron

AECC Consulting

8788 No. It would appear that the County seek to have a Green Belt just to say it has one. Such a policy is designed to prevent urban sprawl, which is not applicable in the vast majority of Northumberland.

9831 Green belt policy needs to protect a wider range of communities, including Haydon Bridge

Page 14

The view that no Green Belt boundary review should take place around Ponteland is noted. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed via the Core Strategy or a subsequent 'delivery' or 'allocations' stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage. [Note: final sentence of response to this question was not complete on the original letter submitted.]

Comment noted. The council does not view the Green Belt as a tool to stop all development in smaller villages as demonstrated by the proposed development principles. The precise definition of the inset boundaries around Morpeth will be subject to public consultation at the Core Strategy or through a subsequent 'delivery stage' or allocations document and that consultation will include the Morpeth Town Council and the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group together with its stakeholders. Comment noted. The Council's view is that the Green Belt extension around Morpeth was established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5. Through the Core Strategy the council is now going through the process of defining boundaries in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 85. Comment noted in particular concern development around Haydon Bridge is not constrained by Green Belt Policy.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 38: Do you agree with the Council’s general approach to Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Mr Chris Winks

Dr Nic Best

CPRE Northumberland

Ms Naomi Waite

Northumberland Wildlife Trust

Mr Richard Cansdale

Schedule of comments and responses

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Comments ID

Council's response

8626 Yes except the fourth bullet under 9.1 should say historic towns and villages (or all settlements). The existing Green Belt boundaries around Ponteland should remain unchanged. The Green Belt is what characterises Ponteland and separates it from the urban sprawl of Newcastle especially as this urban sprawl is creeping westwards towards Ponteland! Destroy any of the Green Belt and you destroy Ponteland! There are no exceptional reasons to change any of the existing Green Belt boundaries around Ponteland. There is no need for any additional housing in Ponteland to be included within this LDP that would require building on any of the Green Belt. [Refers] also [to] comments ..[on]..Question No. 41.

The view that no Green Belt boundary review should take place around Ponteland is noted as is the comment on the setting and special character of historic towns, which aligns with proposed policy and the NPPF. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document and the Council is currently carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

5388 CPRE strongly supports the proposed extension of the Green Belt around Morpeth as we have through the County Structure Plan and the NE RSS previously. We are concerned that timescales and possible loss of saved Structure Plan and RSS policies may delay this designation. We would support the Council in any lobbying of CLG for any necessary dispensation to expedite this policy. CPRE is content that the existing Green Belt is fulfilling the purposes outlined in para 9.1. We would require a very strong case to be made to justify deletion of existing Green Belt for housing or employment land, and do not see such a case in the present documentation. We note too that the Newcastle-Gateshead draft Core Strategy is proposing a major Green Belt deletion and housing development in the Callerton area. We believe that this will have a massive detrimental impact of the openness of the countryside between Ponteland, Darras Hall and Newcastle and would expect Northumberland CC to join us in objecting to this. 8691 NPPF (section 9) emphasises the importance of Green Belt land and the Trust believes with Green Belt designation comes incidental contributions towards the protection of habitats and species. Therefore any review of the Green Belt should be considered carefully and as such the Trust would seek a separate public consultation on any review of the Green Belt boundary. The need for Green Belt boundary alterations and the alternative options should be clearly explained. 5962 The aim of a Green Belt is to protect the unspoiled open countryside between towns and their satellite villages and to prevent them merging into an endless morass of suburbia. This is a most laudable objective but should not be applied blindly. The question which has been posed asks whether settlements such as Longhorsley should be inset or washed over when the Green Belt is extended to the north of Morpeth. I believe this question should be continuously reviewed as the plan evolves but to start with the Tier 3 settlements should be inset.

Support for the approach to the Green Belt extension around Morpeth is noted as are comments on localised review of the existing Green Belt.

Page 15

Comments noted. There will be opportunities at the relevant stage to discuss any review proposals, which, in accordance with NPPF, will seek to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt in a wide variety of ways. General support for the Green Belt is noted. With regard to the suggestion that settlements, such as Longhorsley, be inset with a view to allowing small-scale development to maintain and enhance local services and facilities, it should be noted that the Council is currently carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Evidence of development need will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent 'delivery' or 'allocations' stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 38: Do you agree with the Council’s general approach to Green Belt? Full Name

Sir or Madam

Company / Organisation (if applicable) Natural England

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Comments ID 8252 Natural England recognises the purposes of Green Belts and that Government policy on Green Belt is set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and is interpreted by Local Planning Authorities through the Local Plan process. Our interest relates to the impact of any proposed boundary changes on the natural environment, particularly those that may affect designated landscapes and habitats. In the absence of any adverse impacts on such areas, we offer no comment on Green Belt boundaries. Nevertheless, we encourage the environmental enhancement of land within Green Belts in line with NPPF paragraph 81: "local planning authorities should plan positively to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt, such as looking for opportunities to provide access; to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation; to retain and enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity; or to improve damaged and derelict land"• .

Mr & Mrs Tony & Lesley Noble

6207

Mr David Ord

6344

Mrs Linda Varley

6901

Mr David Feeney

Mitford Parish Council

Mr Neil Wilson

Glendale Gateway Trust & Wooler Parish Council

Dr Elisabeth Charman

RSPB

Schedule of comments and responses

Council's response

9347

It is noted that in the absence of any adverse impacts on designated landscapes and habitats Natural England supports the general approach to the Green Belt. In accordance with NPPF the council will seek to ensure that Green Belt policy in the Core Strategy will help the Council to 'plan positively to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt, such as looking for opportunities to provide access; to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation; to retain and enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity; or to improve damaged and derelict land'• . The character and setting of all settlements should be protected This comment supports the council's general approach to Green Belt as the council proposes to protect the character and setting of all settlements. Agree that the Green Belt should be protected to preserve the character of all This comment supports the council's general Northumberland's market towns (not just Morpeth) and to safeguard the countryside from approach to Green Belt as the council proposes encroachment. Development needs should be met through Brownfield sites. to protect the character and setting of all settlements. The Council's general approach seems to concentrate on the extension of the Green Belt It is understood that this consultees rejects the around Morpeth. I agree that this should be granted. The existing green Belt must be suggestion that existing Green Belt may require protected to prevent urban sprawl from the Tyneside Conurbation. review but supports the proposed Green Belt extension around Morpeth. MPC is not convinced about the need for green belt extension around Morpeth. The MPC's uncertainty about supporting the Green Neighbourhood Plan provides a means to safeguard Morpeth from unrestricted sprawl and Belt extension around Morpeth is noted. The neighbouring settlements merging. Extending the green belt will adversely affect the potential Council does not view the Green Belt as a tool to for rural business diversification and growth which should be a key objective of a sustainable stop rural business diversification and growth and Plan. is currently carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Evidence of development need will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent 'delivery' or 'allocations' stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage public consultation that will include the Morpeth Town Council and the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group together with its stakeholders, such as the Civic Society.

516 Not relevant to us.

4244 Greenbelts make a valuable 'incidental' contribution to the protection of wildlife habitat and connectivity between different wildlife areas. A full public consultation over a review of the Green Belt is recommended and should clearly outline the need and alternative options.

Page 16

No response required.

No review would take place without public consultation and issues of habitat connectivity are dealt with in the Core Strategy section on Green Infrastructure.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 38: Do you agree with the Council’s general approach to Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Mr Patrick M Crowley

Cussins Ltd

Mr Tim Steinlet

Schedule of comments and responses

Ms J Hunter

obo Cussins Ltd

Comment Comments ID

Council's response

7062 [In relation to Longhorsley] Would not want to see village surrounded by green belt as would be to restrictive in relation to required development to ensure survival. In the last 30 years I have seen shops reduce from four to the present one and the school under threat on a number of times. Any further developments would then have to comply with planning requirements.

Rejection of Green Belt extension around Longhorsley on the grounds that it would constrain development is noted. The Council is currently carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County and evidence of development need will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent 'delivery' or 'allocations' stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

5680 Cussins Ltd disagrees with the Council's approach to the Green Belt. If there is to be a targeted approach to delivering housing in lower tier settlements there is no benefit to having these settlements washed over with Green Belt. This would provide another barrier to development. Where there is a strategic policy in place to deliver housing in appropriate, sustainable locations these areas should not then be subject to further restrictions. This will lead to reduced interest from developers and further decline and stagnation of such areas as a result. It is necessary to have a robust and up to date Housing Needs Assessment prior to any proposal to amend the Green Belt. This would enable the Council to reflect on the need to apply Green Belt status to individual areas based upon where development is likely to be required to meet the established need.

Rejection of the Council's general approach to Green Belt is noted. The council does not view the Green Belt as a tool to stop all development in smaller villages. The Council is currently carrying out population modelling work to inform the level of development required across the County and recognises the need for an up to date Housing Needs Assessment, prior to any proposal to amend Green Belt. A Northumberland County Wide Housing Needs Survey is due to be published soon.

12591 Paragraph 9.6 states that "It is recognised that, elsewhere, a localised review of the Green Belt may be required to ensure the overall vision is achieved. The Council proposes that this be done as part of the Core Strategy process and would welcome early submission of any potential Green Belt boundary alterations recognising that in some instances this may be necessary to ensure development needs can be met. The Council also proposes, in accordance with the NPPF, to plan positively to enhance beneficial uses of the existing Green Belt and, once it is defined, the Green Belt extension." The Bell Foundation owns 3 hectares of land to the south west of Wylam, as shown outlined in red on the attached map, and this document is submitted as a proposal for it to be considered as employment land in the forthcoming Northumberland Core Strategy. The intention is to build a number of low density offices and live/work units for small businesses, with a provision for outdoor recreation/green amenity space, in accordance with the Core Strategy Issues and Options Consultation. In accordance with the NPPF, it would be beneficial to alter the Green Belt boundary to accommodate this site within the village of Wylam for the following reasons: 1. The site provides 3 hectares of a requirement of 30-40 hectares of employment land in South & West Northumberland (Table 7.1). There remains a large shortfall particularly in the Tyne Valley. 2. The use of this existing Green Belt site as employment land would be a proactive plan to cater for the employment needs of a rapidly growing population in this settlement. 3. Employment location trends have shifted, and demand will grow for office locations such as this during the next 20 years. 4. The site has existing natural boundaries which make it easy to include, and contain, the site within a revised Green Belt boundary. 5. The site is surrounded by trees and can not be seen from most parts of the settlement so would not represent a great loss of open Green Belt land. 6. The site is easily accessible by both vehicles and pedestrians, and is served well by public transport. There are no physical barriers to developing the site and it is legally and financially deliverable within the term of the emerging Core Strategy. 7. The site is partially within a Flood Zone 2 and, according to Tables 18.2 and 18.3 of the Core Strategy Issues and Options, this type of development is entirely appropriate in such a location. 8. Paragraph 17.26 states that ‘South and West Northumberland has deficiencies in parks and gardens, natural and semi-natural green space and amenity green space’. This proposal would provide semi-natural landscape alongside the Tyne which would transform a muddy riverside footpath into a useable amenity green

Rejection of the general approach to Green Belt is noted as is support for review at a localised level around Wylam to accommodate development on a specific site. The Council is currently carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County and, as well as considering specific sites in the SHLAA Review, evidence of development need will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent 'delivery' or 'allocations' stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Page 17

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 38: Do you agree with the Council’s general approach to Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Mrs Zaina Riddle Mr Robin Wood

Comment Comments ID

Council's response

8940 R&KWood Planning on behalf of various clients

Mr Robin Wood

R & K Wood Planning LLP

4906 The greater inclusion of rural areas in the green belt, far removed from main settlements is unnecessary and contrary to the purposes of green belts expressed in the NPPF. The western extension of the Morpeth green belt to the extent proposed is is not required given there are no settlements with which Morpeth would merge.

Mr Peter Blaylock

5078 Extending the Green Belt west of Morpeth in not necessary. West of Morpeth there are no major settlements for it to join with. Green Belt deters business and affordable housing. Making it more of a dormitory area for commuters from Newcastle.

Eileen Charlton

4292 The need for a consistent approach across the whole of the Northumberland Core Strategy is flawed as it purports to be consistent but in fact restricts and manipulates by the very restrains and enforcements it advocates. The intended extension of the Greenbelt around Morpeth will create an even larger area protected by the restrictions and policies imposed on the greenbelt. This will in effect condemn areas not within these protected areas particularly Tier 2 settlements within commuting distances of the metropolises they will become target areas for unjustified development, being easy targets for potential unfettered housing developments which tend to favour larger than necessary projects. If these policies are enforced the populace will be moved out into rural parts of Northumberland encouraging more commuters to travel further distances which is completely opposed to Green Policies. The Parish of Haydon has become a victim of this being the first tier 2 settlement west of Newcastle outside the greenbelt. With a 14% increase in housing stock and the prospects of a further 40 houses about to be constructed, the area has a large influx of inhabitants a large proportion not having had previous connections to the parish. The most sensible approach would be to enforce the Green Belt Policies everywhere, This would restrict unnecessary development and encourage a well balanced approach therefore safeguards and benefits would be enjoyed by all settlements.

Mrs Carole McGivern

Haydon Parish Council

Schedule of comments and responses

4343 The division into three development areas and proposed extension of the greenbelt will increase the pressure for development in the parishes west and northwest of Hexham. If the green belt is extended to include most of Area 2 (South and West Northumberland) eastwards from Hexham to beyond Morpeth, in a village like Haydon Bridge, which has been inundated with a surge of new housing developments in the last 10 years, such protection, as the designated Green Belt affords to those towns and parishes within its protected area, appears to give unfair advantage to green belt surrounded settlements in controlling their development, to the detriment of rural settlements around its periphery.

Page 18

Rejection of the general approach to Green Belt is noted. Rejection of the general approach to Green Belt is noted. It is considered that the extension to the Green Belt around Morpeth has been established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5. The council is now going through the process of defining boundaries as described in National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 85. Rejection of the general approach to Green Belt is noted. It is considered that the extension to the Green Belt around Morpeth has been established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5. The council is now going through the process of defining boundaries as described in National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 85. Rejection of the general approach to Green Belt noted along with concerns that development will leap-frog the Green Belt and place pressure on rural settlements beyond. While the consultees is of the view that there is such existing development pressure on Haydon Parish , only the extension around Morpeth has been established under Structure Plan Policy S5 and any new extensions would require to be established from the start as new Green Belt, in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework, May 2012. Localised (minor) review of existing Green Belt will require evidence of the need for change to support any boundary changes propose via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage. Rejection of the general approach to Green Belt noted along with concerns that development will leap-frog the Green Belt and place pressure on rural settlements beyond. While the consultees is of the view that there is such existing development pressure on Haydon Parish , only the extension around Morpeth has been established under Structure Plan Policy S5 and any new extensions would require to be established from the start as new Green Belt, in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework, May 2012. Localised (minor) review of existing Green Belt will require evidence of the need for change to support any boundary changes propose via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 38: Do you agree with the Council’s general approach to Green Belt? Full Name

Ms Yana Bosseva

Company / Organisation (if applicable) RenewableUK

Mr James Hopkins

Coriolis Energy

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Rejection of the general approach to Green Belt, due to perceived lack of consideration of wind energy generation, is noted. The council's view is that wind energy applications may or may not be compatible with Green Belt policy and must be considered on an individual basis to reflect national policy and guidance. 9457 Our comments on this Core Strategy are based specifically on our role in delivering low Rejection of the general approach to Green Belt, carbon, renewable energy generation, which the NPPF confirms as an important aim of due to perceived lack of consideration of wind planning. From this point of view, the proposed Green Belt extension in fact threatens to cloud energy generation, is noted. The council's view is decision-making with further uncertainty, in a manner which can be expected also to increase that wind energy applications may or may not be the time and cost of the decision-making process. . Most of the objectives for the proposed compatible with Green Belt policy and must be extension would appear to be pertinent to types of development often deemed inappropriate considered on an individual basis to reflect either in countryside locations, or on the fringes of settlements where they will produce sprawl national policy and guidance. or coalescence (e.g. substantial residential development). Renewable energy installations generally have to be treated differently from such development types for a number of reasons. For example, they generally depend upon an energy source such as wind which is geographically fixed; they have to be sited far enough away from residential property to avoid unduly adverse impacts upon residential amenity; and they do not threaten the unsustainable transport impacts of occupied development such as housing. They are therefore often permitted in locations where employment or residential development, for example, would not be – provided that their impacts upon landscape etc. are deemed acceptable. . Green Belt policy complicates this picture. According to the strict tests, renewable energy developments such as wind turbines are deemed to be ‘inappropriate development’ within the Green Belt. Notwithstanding this, they are frequently found to be permissible in Green Belt locations on the basis of the ‘very special circumstances’ of their provision of cleanand renewable energy. Decision-making has, however, not been consistent, indicating that the application of Green Belt policy to renewable energy development in practice is in fact generally problematic. An extended Green Belt is therefore likely to add time, cost and ambiguity to the decision-making process for any renewable energy developments promoted on the land in question, both locally and at appeal. 4577 I generally do not feel that there is a requirement for any changes to be made to the exisiting Rejection of the general approach to the existing greenbelt. Green Belt is noted. 6951 No, I do not agree with the principles stated in para 9.6. The primary overriding principle Rejection of the general approach to the Green should be that the green belt is not redefined for the purposes of enabling development. If Belt is noted. Evidence of the need for change will there are circumstances where very minor localised re-assessment is necessary these may be required to support any boundary changes be considered in exceptional circumstances but not for large scale housing, commercial or proposed via the Core Strategy or a subsequent industrial development. Para 9.6 would lead to encouraging non-sustainable behaviours if 'delivery' or 'allocations' stage Development Plan adopted. Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Mr Nick Randles

Schedule of comments and responses

Council's response

7482 In our view the potential for wind energy generation in the Green Belt should also be considered and provided for in the CS. Paragraph 91 of the NPPF states that "special circumstances exist for allowing renewable energy in the Green Belt, and these may include the wider environmental benefits associated with increased production of energy from renewable sources".

Mr Chris Dowson

Trustees of Mrs A M Miss Emma Walker Strakers Grandchildren's Settlement

Comment Comments ID

Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners

10580 It is the Trustees firm view that safeguarded land is prioritised for delivery. Reflecting the past under delivery of housing in the County and the identified need for housing to meet current and future needs, it is imperative that land that has been safeguarded in former district plans to meet housing need should be prioritised for development in advance of green belt release. We further contend that it would be inappropriate to review Green Belt boundaries around Corbridge with a view to re-allocating the site as Green Belt given it is specifically identified for development in the adopted TDCS. There has been no change in circumstances to suggest the site should not come forward. Indeed, being a sustainable site that can offer a range of social, environmental and economic benefits for the immediate and wider area, the site should be prioritised for development. Our client’s land at Milkwell, Corbridge is safeguarded in the Adopted TDCS (2007) under Policy H7.2 to meet housing needs beyond 2006, meaning it is safeguarded to deliver housing needs now. The site is available now to deliver housing and should be prioritised. We request that the next version of the CS states that safeguarded sites to meet housing need are prioritised. In the forthcoming Delivery Development Plan Document we suggest the site should be allocated for housing growth.

Page 19

Rejection of the general approach to the Green Belt is noted. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed via the Core Strategy or a subsequent 'delivery' or 'allocations' stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 38: Do you agree with the Council’s general approach to Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Messrs Laidler

Mr Richard Garland

George F White

9850 We strongly disagree with the Council's general approach to the Green Belt. Whilst we accept that Green Belt policy within the NPPF needs to be translated into the Northumberland Local Development Plan, the proposed extension to the Green Belt around Morpeth is entirely unnecessary. Paragraph 82 of the NPPF states that “new Green Belts should only be established in exceptional circumstances, for example when planning for larger scale development such as new settlements or major urban extensions. Paragraph 82 goes on to require Local Planning Authorities to (fulfil) a number a criteria when proposing a new Green Belt. These will be addressed in turn: - The Core Strategy does not at any point demonstrate or justify why normal planning and Development Management policies would not be adequate for the purpose of protecting the countryside from encroachment. - No major changes in circumstances have made the adoption of this exceptional measure necessary. No major urban extensions or new settlements have been planned and the land surrounding Morpeth is no more under threat from development than at any time previously. - The LPA has not demonstrated the consequences of the proposal for sustainable development in the area of proposed Green Belt or the rest of the County. The proposed Green Belt designation would restrict rural economic activity, diversification and tourism development to an unacceptable level and threaten the economic viability of the area. - There is no justification for the necessity for the Green Belt extension within the Core Strategy and no consideration of consistency with Policies for adjoining areas. - It has not been demonstrated that the Green Belt extension would meet the other objectives of the NPPF. Paragraph 9.4 of the NLDP sets out 4 reasons for the proposed Green Belt extension. None of these reasons amount to “exceptional circumstances― . The NPPF (para 85, bullet point 6) requires LPAs to “define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent― . The proposed extension to the Green Belt does not relate to any physical features on the ground and does not fulfil this criterion. The lack of physical features against which the proposed boundary is drawn highlights the inappropriateness of the proposed Green Belt extension and the lack of justification for its extent

Rejection of the general approach to the Green Belt is noted. The council is of the view that the existing boundaries have been established and defined through regional, structure plan and local policies, while the extension to the Green Belt around Morpeth has been established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5. The council is now going through the process of defining boundaries as described in NPPF paragraph 85. The Council is also carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County and such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent 'delivery' or 'allocations' stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Mrs J Graham

Mr Richard Garland

George F White

9895 We strongly disagree with the Council’s general approach to the Green Belt. Whilst we accept that Green Belt policy within the NPPF needs to be translated into the Northumberland Local Development Plan, the proposed extension to the Green Belt around Morpeth is entirely unnecessary. Paragraph 82 of the NPPF states that “new Green Belts should only be established in exceptional circumstances, for example when planning for larger scale development such as new settlements or major urban extensions. Paragraph 82 goes on to require Local Planning Authorities to (fulfil) a number a criteria when proposing a new Green Belt. These will be addressed in turn: - The Core Strategy does not at any point demonstrate or justify why normal planning and Development Management policies would not be adequate for the purpose of protecting the countryside from encroachment. - No major changes in circumstances have made the adoption of this exceptional measure necessary. No major urban extensions or new settlements have been planned and the land surrounding Morpeth is no more under threat from development than at any time previously. - The LPA has not demonstrated the consequences of the proposal for sustainable development in the area of proposed Green Belt or the rest of the County. The proposed Green Belt designation would restrict rural economic activity, diversification and tourism development to an unacceptable level and threaten the economic viability of the area. - There is no justification for the necessity for the Green Belt extension within the Core Strategy and no consideration of consistency with Policies for adjoining areas. - It has not been demonstrated that the Green Belt extension would meet the other objectives of the NPPF. Paragraph 9.4 of the NLDP sets out 4 reasons for the proposed Green Belt extension. None of these reasons amount to “exceptional circumstances― . The NPPF (para 85, bullet point 6) requires LPAs to “define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent― . The proposed extension to the Green Belt does not relate to any physical features on the ground and does not fulfil this criterion. The lack of physical features against which the proposed boundary is drawn highlights the inappropriateness of the proposed Green Belt extension and the lack of justification for its extent.

Rejection of the general approach to the Green Belt is noted. The council is of the view that the existing boundaries have been established and defined through regional, structure plan and local policies, while the extension to the Green Belt around Morpeth has been established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5. The council is now going through the process of defining boundaries as described in NPPF paragraph 85. The Council is also carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County and such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent 'delivery' or 'allocations' stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Schedule of comments and responses

Comment Comments ID

Council's response

Page 20

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 38: Do you agree with the Council’s general approach to Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Mr R. Jeffrey

Schedule of comments and responses

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Mr Richard Garland

George F White

Comment Comments ID

Council's response

10239 We strongly disagree with the Council’s general approach to the Green Belt. Whilst we accept that Green Belt policy within the NPPF needs to be translated into the Northumberland Local Development Plan, the proposed extension to the Green Belt around Morpeth is entirely unnecessary. Paragraph 82 of the NPPF states that “new Green Belts should only be established in exceptional circumstances, for example when planning for larger scale development such as new settlements or major urban extensions. Paragraph 82 goes on to require Local Planning Authorities to (fulfil) a number a criteria when proposing a new Green Belt. These will be addressed in turn: - The Core Strategy does not at any point demonstrate or justify why normal planning and Development Management policies would not be adequate for the purpose of protecting the countryside from encroachment. - No major changes in circumstances have made the adoption of this exceptional measure necessary. No major urban extensions or new settlements have been planned and the land surrounding Morpeth is no more under threat from development than ever before. - The LPA has not demonstrated the consequences of the proposal for sustainable development in the area of proposed Green Belt or the rest of the Country. The proposed Green Belt designation would restrict rural diversification and tourism and rural development generally development to an unacceptable level and threaten and have negative sustainability implications for those party to the area to be designated as Green Belt. - There is no justification for the necessity for the Green Belt extension within the Core Strategy and no consideration of consistency with local plans for adjoining areas. - It has not been demonstrated that the Green Belt extension would meet the other objectives of the NPPF. Paragraph 9.4 of the Core Strategy sets out 4 reasons for the proposed Green Belt extension. None of these reasons amount to “exceptional circumstances†. The NPPF (para 85, bullet point 6) requires LPAs to “define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent― . The proposed extension to the Green Belt does not relate to any physical features on the ground and does not fulfil this criterion. The lack of physical features against which the proposed boundary is drawn highlights the inappropriateness of the proposed Green Belt extension and the lack of justification for its extent.

Page 21

Rejection of the general approach to the Green Belt is noted. The council is of the view that the existing boundaries have been established and defined through regional, structure plan and local policies, while the extension to the Green Belt around Morpeth has been established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5. The council is now going through the process of defining boundaries as described in NPPF paragraph 85. The Council is also carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County and such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 38: Do you agree with the Council’s general approach to Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Messrs Michie

Schedule of comments and responses

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Mr Richard Garland

George F White

Comment Comments ID

Council's response

10342 Our clients strongly disagree with the Council’s general approach to the Green Belt. Whilst we accept that Green Belt policy within the NPPF needs to be translated into the Northumberland Local Development Plan, the proposed extension to the Green Belt around Morpeth is entirely unnecessary. Paragraph 82 of the NPPF states that “new Green Belts should only be established in exceptional circumstances, for example when planning for larger scale development such as new settlements or major urban extensions. Paragraph 82 goes on to require Local Planning Authorities to (fulfil) a number a criteria when proposing a new Green Belt. These will be addressed in turn: - The Core Strategy does not at any point demonstrate or justify why normal planning and Development Management policies would not be adequate for the purpose of protecting the countryside from encroachment. - No major changes in circumstances have made the adoption of this exceptional measure necessary. No major urban extensions or new settlements have been planned and the land surrounding Morpeth is no more under threat from development than ever before. - The LPA has not demonstrated the consequences of the proposal for sustainable development in the area of proposed Green Belt or the rest of the Country. The proposed Green Belt designation would restrict rural diversification and tourism development and rural development generally to an unacceptable level and have negative sustainability implications for those parts of the area to be designated as Green Belt. - There is no justification for the necessity for the Green Belt extension within the Core Strategy and no consideration of consistency with local plans for adjoining areas. - It has not been demonstrated that the Green Belt extension would meet the other objectives of the NPPF. Paragraph 9.4 of the NLDP sets out 4 reasons for the proposed Green Belt extension. None of these reasons amount to “exceptional circumstances†. The NPPF (paragraph 85, bullet point 6) requires LPAs to “define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent― . The proposed extension to the Green Belt does not relate to any physical features on the ground and does not fulfil this criterion. The lack of physical features against which the proposed boundary is drawn highlights the inappropriateness of the proposed Green Belt extension and the lack of justification for its extent.

Page 22

Rejection of the general approach to the Green Belt is noted. The council is of the view that the existing boundaries have been established and defined through regional, structure plan and local policies, while the extension to the Green Belt around Morpeth has been established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed and the Council is carrying out population modelling to asses the level of development required across the County to inform the process of defining boundaries described in NPPF paragraph 85, through the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 38: Do you agree with the Council’s general approach to Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Mr Brian Cazaly

Ms Karen Carins

Stannington Station Residents Association

Schedule of comments and responses

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Mr Richard Garland

George F White

Comment Comments ID

Council's response

10573 We strongly disagree with the Council's general approach to the Green Belt. Whilst we accept that Green Belt policy within the NPPF needs to be translated into the Northumberland Local Development Plan, the proposed extension to the Green Belt around Morpeth is entirely unnecessary. Paragraph 82 of the NPPF states that “new Green Belts should only be established in exceptional circumstances, for example when planning for larger scale development such as new settlements or major urban extensions. Paragraph 82 goes on to require Local Planning Authorities to (fulfil) a number a criteria when proposing a new Green Belt. These will be addressed in turn: - The NLDP does not at any point demonstrate or justify why normal planning and Development Management policies would not be adequate for the purpose of protecting the countryside from encroachment. - No major changes in circumstances have made the adoption of this exceptional measure necessary. No major urban extensions or new settlements have been planned and the land surrounding Morpeth is no more under threat from development than ever before. - The LPA has not demonstrated the consequences of the proposal for sustainable development in the area of proposed Green Belt or the rest of the Country. The proposed Green Belt designation would restrict rural diversification and tourism development to an unacceptable level and threaten the economic viability of the area. - There is no justification for the necessity for the Green Belt extension within the NLDP and no consideration of consistency with local plans for adjoining areas. - It has not been demonstrated that the Green Belt extension would meet the other objectives of the NPPF. Paragraph 9.4 of the NLDP sets out 4 reasons for the proposed Green Belt extension. None of these reasons amount to “exceptional circumstances― . The NPPF (para 85, bullet point 6) requires LPAs to “define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent― . The proposed extension to the Green Belt does not relate to any physical features on the ground and does not fulfil this criterion. The lack of physical features against which the proposed boundary is drawn highlights the inappropriateness of the proposed Green Belt extension and the lack of justification for its extent.

Rejection of the general approach to the Green Belt is noted. The council is of the view that the existing boundaries have been established and defined through regional, structure plan and local policies, while the extension to the Green Belt around Morpeth has been established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed and the Council is carrying out population modelling to asses the level of development required across the County to inform the process of defining boundaries described in NPPF paragraph 85, through the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

4162 9.4 National guidance confirms that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. Why would the council wish to extend the Green Belt when there is no need for change and there are no exceptional circumstances. This approach to extend the Green Belt will work against rural communities stifling businesses and development. The only positive effect would be for Northumberland County Council, it would cut the amount of planning applications, cut down the cost of maintaining the infrastructure and keep services to a minimum. It will guarantee a decline in rural settlements. This approach contradicts all the previous statements made in this consultation referring to helping the rural economy. It makes this consultation unsound.

Rejection of the general approach to the Green Belt, in particular proposed extension, is noted. However it should also be noted that it will still be possible to build new houses and businesses within the Green Belt area, as long as development complies with national and local policy and other Core Strategy policies. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes propose via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Page 23

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 38: Do you agree with the Council’s general approach to Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable) Lugano Developments Ltd

Schedule of comments and responses

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Mr Richard Newsome

GVA

Comment Comments ID

Council's response

6043 Lugano Developments Ltd disagrees with the Councils approach to the Green Belt. It is not considered realistic to suggest boundary changes without knowing: i) the overall housing requirement for the County; and ii) how this will be delivered spatially across sites. It may be that a proportion of housing sites are required to be released from the Green Belt and the potential size of these sites is fundamentally dependent on there being a robust and justified housing needs assessment and a robust demonstration of potential supply. It is considered that neither of these precursors to reviewing the Green Belt exists at present. For example, should the Council only consider sites contained in its Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) this would omit consideration of sites that have come forward since 2010 when the Council last accepted new sites. It is considered likely that additional sites have come forwards since 2010 that should be considered by the Council. Therefore, this information should be updated to ensure that the plan contains the most appropriate strategy when considered against all reasonable alternatives in accordance with paragraph 182 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). In addition, there is no evidence in the Core Strategy or supporting it that any consideration has been given to paragraph 52 of the NPPF. This states that Councils should consider whether the supply of new homes can be best achieved through planning for large scale development, such as new settlements or extensions to existing settlements. It is likely that such consideration could influence amendments to the boundary of the Green Belt. We would also recommend that in reviewing the extent of Green Belt boundaries that the Council takes into account the provision of services where demand, need and wider benefit can be delivered. Where releases of Green Belt are shown to be necessary these should be focussed on sustainable locations which would generate the greatest socio-economic benefits and minimise environmental impact for the locality and also the County as a whole. We consider that this would accord with the provisions of paragraph 84 of the NPPF. It is our view that a more holistic integrated approach on housing need and supply should be adopted by the Council to ensure it has considered all appropriate options in identifying necessary Green Belt release sites. Should this not be carried out it is considered that there would be a substantial risk that the Core Strategy could be found to be unsound under paragraph 182 of the NPPF.

Page 24

Rejection, due to insufficient information on housing requirement and spatial distribution, of the council's general approach to Green Belt is noted. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. The Council is currently carrying out population modelling to inform the need for development across the County ; has published an updated Five Year Housing Land Supply document since the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation document was published; and a routine SHLAA Review will be taking place over the winter of 2012-13. This will assist in the process of ensuring that the plan contains the most appropriate strategy in accordance with paragraph 182 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The reference to NPPF paragraph 52 is misleading as the paragraph actually says "The supply of new homes can sometimes be best achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as new settlements or extensions to existing villages and towns that follow the principles of Garden Cities". Given the size of the County and the need to distribute sustainable development throughout, it is not considered appropriate to plan for individual larger scale new settlements, particularly where they would require release of swathes of Green Belt land that the Government has made clear

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 38: Do you agree with the Council’s general approach to Green Belt? Full Name

Mr Downer

Company / Organisation (if applicable) Blagdon Estates

Mr David Holden

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Mrs Samantha Marlow

Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners

Comment Comments ID

Council's response

9795 Paragraph 9.6 of the CSIO recognises that a localised review of the Green Belt may be required to ensure the overall vision is achieved, and proposes this be done as part of the CS process. We welcome and agree with this approach. This approach recognises that in order to achieve the NPPF objective of significantly boosting the supply of housing and ensuring that full, objectively assessed needs are met, it will be necessary to consider reviewing the existing Green Belt boundaries. We fully support this approach, drawing upon our response to Question 12 earlier. We examine the matter in more detail below. . The NPPF states that: “Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan.― (NPPF paragraph 83.) . The NPPF makes clear that the correct time to review Green Belt boundaries is through the preparation or review of the Local Plan where this can be considered alongside future development needs. This is the case now for Northumberland’s CS. Meeting housing needs should not be frustrated by outof-date Green Belt constraints - such an approach would be unsound. . The overriding housing objective at paragraph 47 of the NPPF is to ensure that full housing needs will be delivered by the Northumberland Core Strategy to significantly boost the supply of housing. This approach is correct and sound. . The Planning Inspectorate has recently confirmed in its examination of the Hertsmere Core Strategy that achieving development needs should not be prevented by out-of-date Green Belt boundaries which should not be simply carried forward and treated as a sacrosanct environmental constraint in the plan-making context. The Inspector stated: . “[I have] significant concerns that the RCS would not provide adequately for housing development over the next 15 years…In order to meet the Government’s expectations of planning for housing, the Council should consider whether it should plan for a more ambitious but realistic target for housing provision that is informed by an objective assessment of needs and demands. In order to do so, it is likely to be necessary to apply the advice of the Framework [NPPF] about reviewing the Green Belt boundary.―(Hertsmere Core Strategy Inspector, May 2012) The NPPF requirement to review Green Belt boundaries clearly applies where Green Belt Boundaries are out-of-date and they should not simply be carried forward. The purpose of the Green Belt is not to indefinitely prevent future growth and such an approach would be wrong and unsound. . Regional Planning Guidance for the North East was clear on this fundamental and longstanding planning principle: . “…there may be a need for locally significant changes 288 I agree with the suggested approach; in particular, the goals to preserve the special setting and character of Morpeth, and prevent it merging with neighbouring settlements. Without such a Green Belt in place, there is a real danger of developers being able to add extensions on to the existing settlement, particularly in the south towards Clifton. I come originally from the Midlands, where examples of lack of forethought in this respect can be seen all over, e.g. the only way to recognise where Birmingham ends and Solihull starts is a sign in the street. Here it would be the same as Newcastle joining up to Morpeth.

Support and justification for the general approach to the Green Belt, in particular localised review of existing Green Belt boundaries, is noted as is the view that no Green Belt boundary review should take place. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County and such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Support and particular concern about protecting the southern entrance to Morpeth from Clifton is noted.

Mr Gordon Pickard

390 I support the aim to both preserve the special setting and character of Morpeth and prevent Support and particular concern about protecting the town merging with neighbouring settlements. The setting of the town is due to its the southern entrance to Morpeth is noted. geography, but its character is determined by its history, layout and design. The sum of these elements together create its character. The approach routes into the town operate as an “appetiser―to the Morpeth experience as an attractive market town. Particularly the main approach road from the south with its avenue of pine trees should be preserved as an attractive gateway to Morpeth and should be protected by the proposed Green Belt that will both mark the entrance to the town and separate it from Clifton.

Mr Tapster

612 Strongly supported. In recent years there have been several occasions when developers have floated plans which would have entailed residential expansion into the area south of the A196 road, possibly leading to the loss of the open land between Morpeth and Hepscott.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 25

Support and particular concern about protecting the southern section between Morpeth and Hepscott is noted.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 38: Do you agree with the Council’s general approach to Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Mr Keith Butler

M. G. and J Funds

Allendale Estates

Mr Roddy Findlay

Mr J Walton

Hexham and Northern Marts

Mr John Potts MRTPI

Mr L Newton (and Family)

Schedule of comments and responses

Dr Malcolm Bell

Land Factor

Comment Comments ID

Council's response

3253 The Core Strategy needs to ensure a full review of Green Belt boundaries is carried out to ensure inconsistencies are corrected. This should take the form of a reduction in Green Belt Boundaries around some settlements. A number of settlements in the County currently washed over by the Green Belt should be removed from the Green Belt as they lie in sustainable locations and are capable of supporting further development in this sustainable location

Support for a Green Belt boundary review at a localised level across the County, is noted. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent 'delivery' or 'allocations' stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

6702 As part of the development of the core strategy the Council needs to reconsider the boundaries of the Green Belt in the south Northumberland area, particularly around Hexham where provision will need to be made for future residential and employment land growth.

Support for a Green Belt boundary review at a localised level across the County, is noted. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent 'delivery' or 'allocations' stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

3770 It is considered that a localised review of Green Belt boundaries is necessary to ensure housing requirement and need is met in the most sustainable locations of Tier 1 settlements, in line with the wider aspirations of the Core Strategy and guidance contained within the NPPF. The site north of Intake Way is highly accessible by non-car modes of transport and is enclosed by existing development on three sides, with a mature landscape barrier to the west, which will act as a defensible barrier to the remaining Green Belt land, safeguarding the remainder of the Green Belt from encroachment for the remainder of the Plan period and beyond. It is therefore considered that this site should be deleted from the Green Belt, and released for housing. The site could accommodate approximately 175 dwellings within the next 10 years, which would assist in meeting housing requirement in an area where the population and household numbers are consistently growing with a lack of available sites to support this growth.

Support for a Green Belt boundary review at a localised level around Hexham , is noted. As well as considering the specific sites in the SHLAA Review, evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent 'delivery' or 'allocations' stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

889 We submit this letter as Representations via Dr Malcolm Bell Ltd, on behalf of Mr Newton and family, who own a site to the south of Mickley Square, and whose site is both sustainable and close to the centre. The site is currently washed over by Green Belt, which, it appears from the logic of the plan, needs to be removed from Green Belt to create an inset village, to allow for further growth in Mickley Square. We have previously sent letters in regard to this site and the Green Belt at Mickley Square to the Council, which we have also attached as an Annex to this letter for ease of reference. The document recognises that a localised review of the Green Belt boundary may be required, and states the Council “would welcome early submission of any potential Green Belt boundary alterations.― As such, contained within the Annex for your information are the details of our Client’s brownfield site at Mickley Square, which would be ideal in assisting the regeneration this settlement. We look forward to discussing details and architectural features with officers. We are happy to liaise with Mr Chown who represents a next door site and offer his clients a shared mode of access. SEE ATTACHMENTS

Support for a Green Belt boundary review at a localised level around Mickley/Mickley Square is noted. As well as considering the specific sites in the SHLAA Review, evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent 'delivery' or 'allocations' stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Page 26

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 38: Do you agree with the Council’s general approach to Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Mr L Newton (and Family)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Dr Malcolm Bell

Merton College

Schedule of comments and responses

Mr James Yeoman

Savills

Comment Comments ID

Council's response

901 The Client agrees a localised review of the Green Belt is necessary to allow for development needs to be met. The council should work closely with the public to bring forward potential Green Belt boundary alterations, particularly people like Mr Newton who have an unused sustainable site which could help regenerate Mickley Square but is currently restricted by Green Belt policy. Morpeth should not be the only town with a planned boundary change as part of the Core Strategy. Consideration should be given to any settlements which are currently restricted by Green Belt policy, and can show they have sites to contribute.

Support for a Green Belt boundary review at a localised level around Mickley/Mickley Square is noted. As well as considering the specific sites in the SHLAA Review, evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

7116 Paragraph 9.6 of the Core Strategy Consultation Document recognises a localised review of the Green Belt may be required to ensure the overall vision is achieved. The production of the Core Strategy provides the ideal opportunity to undertake this review. Merton College agree with the general approach identified. In light of the Council's request to identify sites, Merton College identifies its land holding to the East of Ponteland as part of this submission. The site could be removed from the Green Belt to enable a sustainable extension of Ponteland. The following attributes are noted: • The site is contained by Ponteland Golf Club to the north; the Golf Club and residential development to the west; and limited residential development to the south. The site sits well in relation to the existing built up area of Ponteland; • The site is also positioned close to the main services and facilities within Ponteland, situated along Main Street and West Road. Further employment opportunities are provided by Newcastle International Airport which lies within 2 kilometres of the site. • Ponteland is served by the Ponteland First, Middle and High Schools, situated nearby to the site. The site is also situated close to recreation uses and the town's leisure centre. .In summary, Ponteland is considered a sustainable location for development due to its employment, retail and leisure facilities. A review of the Green Belt to the east of the Town (along the A696) is considered appropriate to enable development at a sustainable location within Northumberland. This, in tum, could assist in the delivery of the northern bypass to Ponteland. Development at this location would also avoid the issue of coalescence, which could be experienced by growth at other locations around Ponteland (e.g. to the west).

Support for a Green Belt boundary review at a localised level around Ponteland is noted. As well as considering the specific sites in the SHLAA Review, evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Page 27

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 38: Do you agree with the Council’s general approach to Green Belt? Full Name

Mr Robert Stockford

Company / Organisation (if applicable) Banks Group

Schedule of comments and responses

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Comments ID

Council's response

5381 The Banks Group supports the review of existing green belt boundaries which should be conducted alongside the drawing of the new green belt boundary around Morpeth. Green Belts should only be revised infrequently and in exceptional circumstances. The local need for new development in the South & West Delivery Area clearly meets the test of exceptional circumstances. Other contributory exceptional circumstances are the need for economic growth, the potential for affordable housing in the areas of greatest need and the achievement of 'sustainable development'. We believe the Council has appropriately identified Hexham, Ponteland and Prudhoe as the focus of the review. These settlements have the potential to meet the strategic development needs of the South & West Delivery Area with other smaller settlements providing infill development. It is important that the Green Belt is not drawn so tight that it precludes some future development beyond the plan period. The designation of some safeguarded land is essential. It is important that the review of green belt boundaries is based on objective planning and landscape principles. Different options should be considered and judged against their proximity to the centre of the settlement and other services, and the impact on openness, coalescence, and encroachment. The Key Land Use Impact Study was carried out on behalf of the Council by independent Land Use Consultants in 2010. The findings of this report are valid and are reinforced by the findings of an assessment carried out by Southern Green for the Banks Group (see attached report) which we shall submit in support of these representations. The Clickemin site is of less landscape sensitivity than the other potential expansion areas and therefore should be the logical location for that expansion. The site is well contained by existing built development on either side of the A696 Ponteland Road. Of equal importance is its proximity to the town centre which provides the essential goods and services and would benefit from the additional footfall this development would bring. All houses would be within 1200 metres of the town centre and most would be within 800 metres. The site’s proximity to the secondary school and the Park & Ride facility at Callerton adds further to its sustainability as a location. Further work is required to refine the green belt boundaries and housing allocations. Plan HJB/PA766/10 is the Banks Group proposal for Ponteland. Further work is required to ensure that development yields benefits for the town and for the greenbelt which may include green infrastructure, sporting facilities, affordable housing, and other community assets. The Banks Group intends to provide quantitative and qualitative evidence on the housing and employment needs of

Page 28

Support for a Green Belt boundary review at a localised level around Ponteland and the offer of further detailed information is noted. As well as considering the specific sites in the SHLAA Review, evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 38: Do you agree with the Council’s general approach to Green Belt? Full Name

Mr Andrew Moss (obo Horton Estate)

Sir/Madam

Company / Organisation (if applicable) Horton Estate

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Mr Andrew Moss

Wardhadaway

1579 Horton Estate recognise that a localised review of the Green Belt may be required and in accordance with para 9.6 have a number of comments / suggestions which are detailed below. Horton Estate own SHLAA site 4629 (land to rear of Wheatfields Seaton Delaval). This site is not designated as Green Belt on the Adopted Local Plan Proposals Map. The site is found suitable in the SHLAA and scheduled to start delivering housing in years 6 – 10, an assessment that Horton Estate support. In the circumstances it is appropriate and sound that the site continues to be excluded from the Green Belt. Horton Estate own SHLAA site 4630 (Land at Hastings Arms Seaton Delaval). The western portion of this site is designated as Green Belt. Horton Estate consider that there should be a localised review of the Green Belt boundary in this location and that the boundary should be revised to continue on from the back of properties on the western side of Whytrigg Close and across the railway. Such a boundary would amongst other things be logical, defensible and justifiable in the context of the Seaton Delaval's status as a key service centre. Horton Estate own SHLAA site 4622 (Land at Newsham, South of Blyth Golf Course). It is noted that the northern extremity of the Green Belt boundary in this area is the A1061. Horton Estate consider the A1061 remains the appropriate boundary in this area and therefore the Green Belt should remain as currently defined. Following on from the above Horton Estate would wish for a dialogue with officers in relation to SHLAA site 4622 which is found suitable for housing development yet is classified as 'uncertain' in terms of the time frame for potential housing development to commence. Possibly the rationale for this relates to the comment in the SHLAA that 'Delivery will largely be dependant upon market demand and wider economic conditions and is unlikely to be delivered until sites to SE have been developed. Phasing will be key'. There are a number of comments Horton Estate wish to make in relation to this. These include that there can be benefits from having a number of closely related sites being developed concurrently including the greater overall delivery of dwellings than one site would in itself be able to deliver a year. In the circumstances there is a need for a comprehensive approach to development in this area and possibilities could include a portion of site 4622 being accessed from the north.

Support for a Green Belt boundary review at a localised level around Seaton Delaval, Newsham and South Blyth is noted. As well as considering the specific sites in the SHLAA Review, evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Allendale Estates

Mrs Katherine Brooker

Dickinson Dees LLP

8128 Agree with the content and approach in para 9.6 welcoming potential Green Belt boundary alterations other than North Morpeth extension. Stocksfield has land that does not perform the purposes of the Green Belt in national policy and has development potential to contribute to the objectives of the plan, contributing to the economy and housing delivery. (please see attached plan)

Support for a Green Belt boundary review at a localised level, particularly around Stocksfield , is noted. As well as considering the specific sites in the SHLAA Review, evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Mrs Sanger

Schedule of comments and responses

Comment Comments ID

Council's response

7817 I strongly support the proposal to extend the Green Belt, and believe that this proposal will Support for general approach to Green Belt and play a key role in the preservation of Morpeth’s special setting and character, while specifically the proposed extension around preventing it merging with neighbouring settlements, and safeguarding the rural area from Morpeth is noted. harmful encroachment. However these laudable and important aims are wholly incompatible with the siting within the proposal area of industrial wind power stations, and their associated infrastructure. I am very concerned therefore that NCC must not allow this important initiative to be jeopardised or compromised in the interim by approving wind farms in the proposal area.

Page 29

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 38: Do you agree with the Council’s general approach to Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Mrs Annie Wright

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Comments ID

Council's response

8013 I strongly support the proposal to extend the Green Belt, and believe that this proposal will play a key role in the preservation of Morpeth’s special setting and character, while preventing it merging with neighbouring settlements, and safeguarding the rural area from harmful encroachment. However these laudable and important aims are wholly incompatible with the siting within the proposal area of industrial wind power stations, and their associated infrastructure. I am very concerned therefore that NCC must not allow this important initiative to be jeopardised or compromised in the interim by approving wind farms in the proposal area. 8041 I strongly support the proposal to extend the Green Belt, and believe that this proposal will play a key role in the preservation of Morpeth’s special setting and character, while preventing it merging with neighbouring settlements, and safeguarding the rural area from harmful encroachment. However these laudable and important aims are wholly incompatible with the siting within the proposal area of industrial wind power stations, and their associated infrastructure. I am very concerned therefore that NCC must not allow this important initiative to be jeopardised or compromised in the interim by approving wind farms in the proposal area. 8184 I strongly support the proposal to extend the Green Belt, and believe that this proposal will play a key role in the preservation of Morpeth’s special setting and character, while preventing it merging with neighbouring settlements, and safeguarding the rural area from harmful encroachment. However these laudable and important aims are wholly incompatible with the siting within the proposal area of industrial wind power stations, and their associated infrastructure. I am very concerned therefore that NCC must not allow this important initiative to be jeopardised or compromised in the interim by approving wind farms in the proposal area. 4439 Yes. To protect the coastal landscape, the heritage coastline and to conserve and protect Northumberland coast's natural and historical environment the creation of Green Belt(s) should be established

Support for general approach to Green Belt and specifically the proposed extension around Morpeth is noted.

Mr Adrian Baker

5030 Yes. To protect the coastal landscape, the heritage coastline and to conserve and protect Northumberland coast's natural and historical environment the creation of Green Belt(s) should be established

Support for general approach to Green Belt is noted. However it is considered that the major area of development pressure in the County is associated with the Tyne & Wear City Region and therefore the only extension that may be justified is that around Morpeth, which increases the depth of the existing Tyne & Wear Green Belt and has already been established by the Structure Plan.

Mr W A Cowan

2311 Yes subject to our concern re the downgrading of the Benson report designations.

Support for general approach to Green belt is noted and welcomed. It should be noted that the Northumberland Landscape Character Appraisal, part of the Core Strategy evidence base, did refer to the J. Benson et al, Landscape Research Group, University of Newcastle (2003), Landscape Appraisal for Onshore Wind Development, commissioned by the former Government Office for the North East.

Mr Stephen Lloyd

Miss Eloise Quayle

Mr Peter Gomersall

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 30

Support for general approach to Green Belt and specifically the proposed extension around Morpeth is noted.

Support for general approach to Green Belt and specifically the proposed extension around Morpeth is noted.

Support for general approach to Green Belt is noted. However it is considered that the major area of development pressure in the County is associated with the Tyne & Wear City Region and therefore the only extension that may be justified is that around Morpeth, which increases the depth of the existing Tyne & Wear Green Belt and has already been established by the Structure Plan.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 38: Do you agree with the Council’s general approach to Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Comments ID

Council's response

Mrs M Cowan

2947 Yes subject to our concern re downgrading of the Benson report designations.

Support for general approach to Green belt is noted. It should be noted that the Northumberland Landscape Character Appraisal, part of the Core Strategy evidence base, did refer to the J. Benson et al, Landscape Research Group, University of Newcastle (2003), Landscape Appraisal for Onshore Wind Development, commissioned by the former Government Office for the North East.

Mrs Ann Rutter

4378 Yes subject to our concern re the downgrading of the Benson Report designations.

Support for general approach to Green belt is noted. It should be noted that the Northumberland Landscape Character Appraisal, part of the Core Strategy evidence base, did refer to the J. Benson et al, Landscape Research Group, University of Newcastle (2003), Landscape Appraisal for Onshore Wind Development, commissioned by the former Government Office for the North East.

Dr. John Paul O'Neill

5867 Yes subject to our concern re the downgrading of the Benson report designations.

Support for general approach to Green belt is noted. It should be noted that the Northumberland Landscape Character Appraisal, part of the Core Strategy evidence base, did refer to the J. Benson et al, Landscape Research Group, University of Newcastle (2003), Landscape Appraisal for Onshore Wind Development, commissioned by the former Government Office for the North East.

Mr Hugh Cheswright

11029 Yes subject to our concern re the downgrading of the Benson report designations

Support for general approach to Green belt is noted. It should be noted that the Northumberland Landscape Character Appraisal, part of the Core Strategy evidence base, did refer to the J. Benson et al, Landscape Research Group, University of Newcastle (2003), Landscape Appraisal for Onshore Wind Development, commissioned by the former Government Office for the North East.

Mrs Jean Cheswright

11074 Yes subject to our concern re the downgrading of the Benson report designations

Support for general approach to Green belt is noted. It should be noted that the Northumberland Landscape Character Appraisal, part of the Core Strategy evidence base, did refer to the J. Benson et al, Landscape Research Group, University of Newcastle (2003), Landscape Appraisal for Onshore Wind Development, commissioned by the former Government Office for the North East.

Strachan

Clifton Residents Association

Mr Christopher C S Hills

Schedule of comments and responses

4103 Clifton and Morpeth will benefit from Green Belt protection, being, at present, very much in the Support for general approach to Green Belt noted developers' "line of fire". particularly with regard to Morpeth and Clifton. 443 Maintaining a subtantial area of green and undeveloped land round any town is very important. A 'green belt' is always favourable to developement areas and prevents towns effectively joining up with one another as has happened in Tyne and Wear where there are practically no green spaces left.

Page 31

Support for general approach to Green Belt noted.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 38: Do you agree with the Council’s general approach to Green Belt? Full Name

Mr Philip Ham

Company / Agent Name (if Organisation (if applicable) applicable) Ponteland Civic Society

Mr Chris Offord

Chris Offord Consultancy

Iain Elliott

Longhorsley Parish Council

Mrs Helen Lewis Mr Robert Stockford

Banks Group

Mr James Johnson

Northumberland Estates

Ms Barbara Hooper

National Trust

Mr Iain Hay

Mrs Lucinda FlemingJones

Schedule of comments and responses

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Comments ID

Council's response

1490 The Ponteland Civic Society supports the proposed extension of the Green Belt around Morpeth. 3044 I agree with preserving the special setting and character of Morpeth and preventing its merging with neighbouring settlements. This can be achieved by extending the Green Belt around Morpeth which has been a proposal for around 20 years. 4923 The principles set out in section 9.1 are still valid, but given development growth strategies (one of the purposes of this plan), care needs to be taken to protect the countryside that is closer to the urban areas (and specifically, within commuting distance of the major employment areas). The Green Belt approach is appropriate, and an extension is correct given current and future circumstances. 4961 We need to retain the character of our area as much as practicable

Support for general approach to Green Belt noted. Support for general approach to Green Belt noted. Support for general approach to Green Belt noted.

Support for general approach to Green Belt noted. Support for general approach to Green Belt noted.

5374 The Banks Group supports the review of existing green belt boundaries which should be conducted alongside the drawing of the new green belt boundary around Morpeth. Green Belts should only be revised infrequently and in exceptional circumstances. The local need for new development in the South & West Delivery Area clearly meets the test of exceptional circumstances. Other contributory exceptional circumstances are the need for economic growth, the potential for affordable housing in the areas of greatest need and the achievement of “sustainable development― . 7793 The Northumberland Estates agree with the general approach to the Green Belt. Support for general approach to Green Belt noted. 8535 We agree with a review of the Green Belt boundary. In particular, we welcome the proposal to Support for general approach to Green Belt plan positively to enhance beneficial uses which will retain the purpose of the Green Belt, but noted. allow small scale and appropriate development. 446 The council is correct that the special setting and character of Morpeth needs to be Support for general approach to Green Belt preserved. I am originally from Greater London/Essex and I have seen the devastating effect noted. Also noted is particular concern about caused by allowing development (especially on green belt sites) decided by developers and protecting the southern approach to Morpeth from not by policy lead by public consultation. Expansion of Morpeth town into Pegswood to the NE Clifton and north eastern approach from and into Clifton and the A1 on the south would damage the unique atraction of this Jewel in Pegswood. The suggested development of Northumberlands crown. Any development should be restricted to brown field sites to be brownfield land only around Morpeth will depend allowed ONLY after effective and democratic public consultation. The desire to grow the on where the inner Green Belt boundary is economy of the NE should not be done at the expense of losing the character of this area. defined and consideration of responses to We must not follow where others have lead but be leaders in the country in sensitive and Question 14 on the use of locally appropriate sensible development within the confines of existing townscapes. targets for the use of previously developed land. 3049 Yes. To protect the coastal landscape, the heritage coastline and to conserve and protect Northumberland coast’s natural and historical environment the creation of Green Belt(s) should be established

Page 32

Support for general approach to Green Belt noted. Also noted is the view that new Green Belt should be established to protect the Northumberland Heritage Coast. However it is considered that the major area of development pressure in the County is associated with the Tyne & Wear City Region and therefore the only extension that may be justified is that around Morpeth, which increases the depth of the existing Tyne & Wear Green Belt and has already been established by the Structure Plan.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 38: Do you agree with the Council’s general approach to Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Comments ID

Council's response

Mr Phil Russell

3396 Yes. To protect the coastal landscape, the heritage coastline and to conserve and protect Northumberland coast’s natural and historical environment the creation of Green Belt(s) should be established.

Support for general approach to Green Belt noted. Also noted is the view that new Green Belt should be established to protect the Northumberland Heritage Coast. However it is considered that the major area of development pressure in the County is associated with the Tyne & Wear City Region and therefore the only extension that may be justified is that around Morpeth, which increases the depth of the existing Tyne & Wear Green Belt and has already been established by the Structure Plan.

Mr James Williamson

3514 To protect the coastal landscape, the heritage coastline and to conserve and protect Northumberland coast’s natural and historical environment the creation of Green Belt(s) should be established.

Support for general approach to Green Belt noted. Also noted is the view that new Green Belt should be established to protect the Northumberland Heritage Coast. However it is considered that the major area of development pressure in the County is associated with the Tyne & Wear City Region and therefore the only extension that may be justified is that around Morpeth, which increases the depth of the existing Tyne & Wear Green Belt and has already been established by the Structure Plan.

Mrs Deborah Baker

3608 Green Belts should be established to protect the coastal landscape and heritage coastline and to conserve and protect Northumberland Coast's natural and historial environment.

Support for general approach to Green Belt noted. Also noted is the view that new Green Belt should be established to protect the Northumberland Heritage Coast. However it is considered that the major area of development pressure in the County is associated with the Tyne & Wear City Region and therefore the only extension that may be justified is that around Morpeth, which increases the depth of the existing Tyne & Wear Green Belt and has already been established by the Structure Plan.

Mrs Christine Williamson

3692 Yes. To protect the coastal landscape, the heritage coastline and to conserve and protect Northumberland coast’s natural and historical environment the creation of Green Belt(s) should be established

Support for general approach to Green Belt noted. Also noted is the view that new Green Belt should be established to protect the Northumberland Heritage Coast. However it is considered that the major area of development pressure in the County is associated with the Tyne & Wear City Region and therefore the only extension that may be justified is that around Morpeth, which increases the depth of the existing Tyne & Wear Green Belt and has already been established by the Structure Plan.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 33

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 38: Do you agree with the Council’s general approach to Green Belt? Full Name

Jennifer Hall

Company / Agent Name (if Organisation (if applicable) applicable) Beadnell Parish Council

Mr and Mrs Jim and Susan Norris

Miss G Turner

Morpeth Town Council

Mrs Angela Parr

Hepscott Parish Council

Mr Andy Colls

Schedule of comments and responses

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Comments ID

Council's response

3830 Yes. To protect the coastal landscape, the heritage coastline and to conserve and protect Northumberland coast’s natural and historical environment the creation of Green Belt(s) should be established

Support for general approach to Green Belt noted. Also noted is the view that new Green Belt should be established to protect the Northumberland Heritage Coast. However it is considered that the major area of development pressure in the County is associated with the Tyne & Wear City Region and therefore the only extension that may be justified is that around Morpeth, which increases the depth of the existing Tyne & Wear Green Belt and has already been established by the Structure Plan.

6997 Yes. To protect the coastal landscape, the heritage coastline and to conserve and protect Northumberland coast’s natural and historical environment the creation of Green Belt(s) should be established

Support for general approach to Green Belt noted. Also noted is the view that new Green Belt should be established to protect the Northumberland Heritage Coast. However it is considered that the major area of development pressure in the County is associated with the Tyne & Wear City Region and therefore the only extension that may be justified is that around Morpeth, which increases the depth of the existing Tyne & Wear Green Belt and has already been established by the Structure Plan.

1209 MTC supports the Council’s general approach and welcomes the opportunity to contribute Support for general approach to Green Belt to the definition of Green Belt boundaries. noted. The County Council will welcome Morpeth Town Council's input to defining the Morpeth Green Belt boundary and will seek to engage the Town Council through the Preferred Options stage of the Core Strategy. 2468 Hepscott Parish Council supports the Council's general approach to the Green Belt. We wish Support for general approach to Green Belt to contribute to the definition of Green Belt boundaries, particularly south of Morpeth. noted. The County Council will welcome Hepscott Parish Council's input to defining the southern Morpeth Green Belt boundary from Hepscott and will seek to engage the Parish Council through the Preferred Options stage of the Core Strategy. 3916 The majority of Northumberland is green and rural. Any greenbelt policy should apply acroos the whole of the county and not just restrict development in the southern parts of the county.

Page 34

Support for general approach to Green Belt noted. However it is considered that the major area of development pressure is associated with the Tyne & Wear City Region and therefore the only extension that may be justified is that around Morpeth, which increases the depth of the existing Tyne & Wear Green Belt and was established through the Structure Plan.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 38: Do you agree with the Council’s general approach to Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Mrs Jennifer Ham

Mr Steve Willcock

Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Sir or Madam

Barratt/David Wilson Mr Neil Morton Homes & Leazes Estate

Schedule of comments and responses

Mr David Graham

Comment Comments ID

Council's response

1402 Agree to extending Green Belt around Morpeth. The Green Belt around Ponteland needs 'reinforcing' to preserve the individual settlement pattern and to prevent a joining up with the urban connurbation of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Wishes of local people should be addressed.

Support for Green Belt extension around Morpeth noted. Also noted is the view that the Green Belt around Ponteland should be reinforced, which is taken as meaning no review should take place. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners

10413 It is recognised that a localised review of the Green Belt may be required to ensure the overall vision is achieved. As part of this representation we have no specific comments on the general approach and note that a Green Belt extension around Morpeth is proposed. . Whilst we do not object to a review of green belt boundaries it is our firm view that safeguarded land is prioritised for delivery. Reflecting the past under delivery of housing in the County and the identified need for housing to meet current and future needs, it is imperative that land that has been safeguarded in former district plans to meet housing need should be prioritised for development in advance of green belt release. . Our client's land at Deadridge in Corbridge is safeguarded in the Adopted TDCS (2007) under policy H7.2 to meet housing needs beyond 2006, meaning it is safeguarded to deliver housing needs now. The site is available now to deliver housing and should be prioritised. We request that the next version of the CS states that safeguarded sites to meet housing need are prioritised.

Support for localised review is noted in particular the requirement the need to safeguard development land around Corbridge. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners

10483 Recognising the Vision and preferred strategic development and distribution option of the Support for the general approach to Green Belt CSIO, we full support the identification at paragraph 9.6 that: “It is recognised that, boundaries in particular around Hexham is noted. elsewhere, a localised review of Green Belt may be required to ensure the overall vision is achieved. The Council proposes that this be done as part of the Core Strategy process and would welcome early submission of any potential Green Belt boundary alterations recognising that in some cases this may be necessary to ensure development needs can be met.― (NLP emphasis) Furthermore, paragraph 4.3 of the CSIO recognises: “consideration [will] be given to Green Belt review around the settlements of Hexham…―(NLP emphasis) The National Planning Policy Framework Paragraph 80 of the NPPF sets out five purposes of including land within the Green Belt: • To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; • To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; • To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; • To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and • To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. Clearly if land does not fulfil these purposes then it is appropriate for it to be removed from the Green Belt. Paragraphs 83 – 85 of the NPPF set out the Government’s policy on reviewing Green Belt boundaries. Paragraph 83 confirms that it is appropriate to review Green Belt boundaries through the preparation or review of the Local Plan. This is the case now for Northumberland’s Core Strategy. Paragraph 84 states: “When drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries local planning authorities should take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development. They should consider the consequences for sustainable development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt or towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary.―It is therefore implicit that Green Belt boundaries should be reviewed to ensure full development needs are met in accordance with paragraph 47 of the NPPF. Green Belt boundaries should be reviewed to facilitate this not prevent it. It is within this context that NLP considers there is an urgent need to review Green Belt boundaries in Hexham. Paragraph 85 states that when defining Green Belt boundaries, including as part of a review, local planning authorities should: • “where necessary, identify in their plans areas of ‘safeguarded land’ between the urban area and the Green Belt, in order to meet longer-term development needs stretching well beyond the plan period.― “make clear that

Page 35

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 38: Do you agree with the Council’s general approach to Green Belt? Full Name

Sir or Madam

Mr Lester Sher

Company / Organisation (if applicable) Barratt / David Wilson Homes NE

Action for Rural Morpeth ARM

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Mr Neil Morton

Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners

Comment Comments ID

Council's response

10532 Paragraph 9.6 of the CSIO recognises that a localised review of the Green Belt may be Support for the general approach to Green Belt required to ensure the overall vision is achieved, and proposes this be done as part of the CS boundaries in particular around Hexham is noted. process. Paragraph 4.3 confirms Hexham is one settlement where a Green Belt review will be considered. We welcome and agree with this approach. This approach recognises that in order to achieve the NPPF objective of significantly boosting the supply of housing and ensuring that full, objectively assessed needs are met, it will be necessary to consider reviewing the existing Green Belt boundaries in Hexham. We fully support this approach, drawing upon our response to Question 12 earlier. We examine the matter in more detail below. (see attached copy of representations from page 30) 11013 ARM strongly supports the proposal to extend the Green Belt, and believe that this proposal will play a key role in the preservation of Morpeth’s special setting and character, while preventing it merging with neighbouring settlements, and safeguarding the rural area from harmful encroachment. However these laudable and important aims are wholly incompatible with the siting within the proposal area of industrial wind power stations, and their associated infrastructure. We are very concerned therefore that NCC must not allow this important initiative to be jeopardised or compromised in the interim by approving wind farms in the proposal area. We have some concerns that timescales and possible loss of saved Structure Plan and RSS policies may delay the Green Belt designation. Although we can see that the existing Green Belt is fulfilling the purposes outlined in paragraph 9.1, we would echo CPRE’s concerns about any future deletion of existing Green Belt for housing or employment land, such as the major deletion proposed in the Newcastle-Gateshead draft Core Strategy for housing development.

Support for the general approach to Green Belt, particularly in regard to the extension around Morpeth, as long as the council refrains from approving wind farm applications, is noted. The council's view is that wind energy applications may or may not be compatible with Green Belt policy and must be considered on an individual basis to reflect national policy and guidance.

Mr Murray Macrae

11148 I strongly support the proposal to extend the Green Belt. This proposal will play a key role in the preservation of Morpeth’s special setting and character, while preventing it merging with neighbouring settlements, and safeguarding the rural area from harmful encroachment. This proposal is, however, wholly incompatible with the siting within the proposal area of industrial wind power stations, and their associated infrastructure. I am very concerned therefore that NCC must not allow this important initiative to be jeopardised or compromised in the interim by approving wind farms in the proposal area.

Support for the general approach to Green Belt, particularly in regard to the extension around Morpeth, as long as the council refrains from approving wind farm applications, is noted. The council's view is that wind energy applications may or may not be compatible with Green Belt policy and must be considered on an individual basis to reflect national policy and guidance.

Ms Wendy Mason

11172 I strongly support the proposal to extend the Green Belt. This proposal will play a key role in the preservation of Morpeth’s special setting and character, while preventing it merging with neighbouring settlements, and safeguarding the rural area from harmful encroachment. This proposal is, however, wholly incompatible with the siting within the proposal area of industrial wind power stations, and their associated infrastructure. I am very concerned therefore that NCC must not allow this important initiative to be jeopardised or compromised in the interim by approving wind farms in the proposal area.

Support for the general approach to Green Belt, particularly in regard to the extension around Morpeth, as long as the council refrains from approving wind farm applications, is noted. The council's view is that wind energy applications may or may not be compatible with Green Belt policy and must be considered on an individual basis to reflect national policy and guidance.

Dr Emma O'Neill

11206 I strongly support the proposal to extend the Green Belt, and believe that this proposal will play a key role in the preservation of Morpeth’s special setting and character, while preventing it merging with neighbouring settlements, and safeguarding the rural area from harmful encroachment. However these laudable and important aims are wholly incompatible with the siting within the proposal area of industrial wind power stations, and their associated infrastructure. I am very concerned therefore that NCC must not allow this important initiative to be jeopardised or compromised in the interim by approving wind farms in the proposal area.

Support for the general approach to Green Belt, particularly in regard to the extension around Morpeth, as long as the council refrains from approving wind farm applications, is noted. The council's view is that wind energy applications may or may not be compatible with Green Belt policy and must be considered on an individual basis to reflect national policy and guidance.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 36

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 38: Do you agree with the Council’s general approach to Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Comments ID

Council's response

Mrs Judith Quayle

11230 I strongly support the proposal to extend the Green Belt, and believe that this proposal will play a key role in the preservation of Morpeth’s special setting and character, while preventing it merging with neighbouring settlements, and safeguarding the rural area from harmful encroachment. However these laudable and important aims are wholly incompatible with the siting within the proposal area of industrial wind power stations, and their associated infrastructure. I am very concerned therefore that NCC must not allow this important initiative to be jeopardised or compromised in the interim by approving wind farms in the proposal area.

Support for the general approach to Green Belt, particularly in regard to the extension around Morpeth, as long as the council refrains from approving wind farm applications, is noted. The council's view is that wind energy applications may or may not be compatible with Green Belt policy and must be considered on an individual basis to reflect national policy and guidance.

Mr and Mrs Sill

11244 I strongly support the proposal to extend the Green Belt, and believe that this proposal will play a key role in the preservation of Morpeth’s special setting and character, while preventing it merging with neighbouring settlements, and safeguarding the rural area from harmful encroachment. However these laudable and important aims are wholly incompatible with the siting within the proposal area of industrial wind power stations, and their associated infrastructure. I am very concerned therefore that NCC must not allow this important initiative to be jeopardised or compromised in the interim by approving wind farms in the proposal area.

Support for the general approach to Green Belt, particularly in regard to the extension around Morpeth, as long as the council refrains from approving wind farm applications, is noted. The council's view is that wind energy applications may or may not be compatible with Green Belt policy and must be considered on an individual basis to reflect national policy and guidance.

Mrs Trimmings

11258 I strongly support the proposal to extend the Green Belt, and believe that this proposal will play a key role in the preservation of Morpeth’s special setting and character, while preventing it merging with neighbouring settlements, and safeguarding the rural area from harmful encroachment. However these laudable and important aims are wholly incompatible with the siting within the proposal area of industrial wind power stations, and their associated infrastructure. I am very concerned therefore that NCC must not allow this important initiative to be jeopardised or compromised in the interim by approving wind farms in the proposal area.

Support for the general approach to Green Belt, particularly in regard to the extension around Morpeth, as long as the council refrains from approving wind farm applications, is noted. The council's view is that wind energy applications may or may not be compatible with Green Belt policy and must be considered on an individual basis to reflect national policy and guidance.

Mrs Jane Cockburn

11281 I strongly support the proposal to extend the Green Belt, and believe that this proposal will play a key role in the preservation of Morpeth’s special setting and character, while preventing it merging with neighbouring settlements, and safeguarding the rural area from harmful encroachment. However these laudable and important aims are wholly incompatible with the siting within the proposal area of industrial wind power stations, and their associated infrastructure. I am very concerned therefore that NCC must not allow this important initiative to be jeopardised or compromised in the interim by approving wind farms in the proposal area.

Support for the general approach to Green Belt, particularly in regard to the extension around Morpeth, as long as the council refrains from approving wind farm applications, is noted. The council's view is that wind energy applications may or may not be compatible with Green Belt policy and must be considered on an individual basis to reflect national policy and guidance.

Mrs Linda Sher

11285 ARM strongly supports the proposal to extend the Green Belt, and believe that this proposal will play a key role in the preservation of Morpeth’s special setting and character, while preventing it merging with neighbouring settlements, and safeguarding the rural area from harmful encroachment. However these laudable and important aims are wholly incompatible with the siting within the proposal area of industrial wind power stations, and their associated infrastructure. We are very concerned therefore that NCC must not allow this important initiative to be jeopardised or compromised in the interim by approving wind farms in the proposal area. We have some concerns that timescales and possible loss of saved Structure Plan and RSS policies may delay the Green Belt designation. Although we can see that the existing Green Belt is fulfilling the purposes outlined in paragraph 9.1, we would echo CPRE’s concerns about any future deletion of existing Green Belt for housing or employment land, such as the major deletion proposed in the Newcastle-Gateshead draft Core Strategy for housing development.

Support for the general approach to Green Belt, particularly in regard to the extension around Morpeth, as long as the council refrains from approving wind farm applications, is noted. The council's view is that wind energy applications may or may not be compatible with Green Belt policy and must be considered on an individual basis to reflect national policy and guidance.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 37

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 38: Do you agree with the Council’s general approach to Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Comments ID

Council's response

Miss Caroline Daisy Cockburn

11295 I strongly support the proposal to extend the Green Belt, and believe that this proposal will play a key role in the preservation of Morpeth’s special setting and character, while preventing it merging with neighbouring settlements, and safeguarding the rural area from harmful encroachment. However these laudable and important aims are wholly incompatible with the siting within the proposal area of industrial wind power stations, and their associated infrastructure. I am very concerned therefore that NCC must not allow this important initiative to be jeopardised or compromised in the interim by approving wind farms in the proposal area.

Support for the general approach to Green Belt, particularly in regard to the extension around Morpeth, as long as the council refrains from approving wind farm applications, is noted. The council's view is that wind energy applications may or may not be compatible with Green Belt policy and must be considered on an individual basis to reflect national policy and guidance.

Mr Joel Lester Sher

11311 ARM strongly supports the proposal to extend the Green Belt, and believe that this proposal will play a key role in the preservation of Morpeth’s special setting and character, while preventing it merging with neighbouring settlements, and safeguarding the rural area from harmful encroachment. However these laudable and important aims are wholly incompatible with the siting within the proposal area of industrial wind power stations, and their associated infrastructure. We are very concerned therefore that NCC must not allow this important initiative to be jeopardised or compromised in the interim by approving wind farms in the proposal area. We have some concerns that timescales and possible loss of saved Structure Plan and RSS policies may delay the Green Belt designation. Although we can see that the existing Green Belt is fulfilling the purposes outlined in paragraph 9.1, we would echo CPRE’s concerns about any future deletion of existing Green Belt for housing or employment land, such as the major deletion proposed in the Newcastle-Gateshead draft Core Strategy for housing development.

Support for the general approach to Green Belt, particularly in regard to the extension around Morpeth, as long as the council refrains from approving wind farm applications, is noted. The council's view is that wind energy applications may or may not be compatible with Green Belt policy and must be considered on an individual basis to reflect national policy and guidance.

Miss Louisa Traquair Cockburn

11312 I strongly support the proposal to extend the Green Belt, and believe that this proposal will play a key role in the preservation of Morpeth’s special setting and character, while preventing it merging with neighbouring settlements, and safeguarding the rural area from harmful encroachment. However these laudable and important aims are wholly incompatible with the siting within the proposal area of industrial wind power stations, and their associated infrastructure. I am very concerned therefore that NCC must not allow this important initiative to be jeopardised or compromised in the interim by approving wind farms in the proposal area.

Support for the general approach to Green Belt, particularly in regard to the extension around Morpeth, as long as the council refrains from approving wind farm applications, is noted. The council's view is that wind energy applications may or may not be compatible with Green Belt policy and must be considered on an individual basis to reflect national policy and guidance.

Mr Frank William Cockburn

11327 I strongly support the proposal to extend the Green Belt, and believe that this proposal will play a key role in the preservation of Morpeth’s special setting and character, while preventing it merging with neighbouring settlements, and safeguarding the rural area from harmful encroachment. However these laudable and important aims are wholly incompatible with the siting within the proposal area of industrial wind power stations, and their associated infrastructure. I am very concerned therefore that NCC must not allow this important initiative to be jeopardised or compromised in the interim by approving wind farms in the proposal area.

Support for the general approach to Green Belt, particularly in regard to the extension around Morpeth, as long as the council refrains from approving wind farm applications, is noted. The council's view is that wind energy applications may or may not be compatible with Green Belt policy and must be considered on an individual basis to reflect national policy and guidance.

Mrs Clare Kendall

11364 I strongly support the proposal to extend the Green Belt, and believe that this proposal will play a key role in the preservation of Morpeth’s special setting and character, while preventing it merging with neighbouring settlements, and safeguarding the rural area from harmful encroachment. However these laudable and important aims are wholly incompatible with the siting within the proposal area of industrial wind power stations, and their associated infrastructure. I am very concerned therefore that NCC must not allow this important initiative to be jeopardised or compromised in the interim by approving wind farms in the proposal area.

Support for the general approach to Green Belt, particularly in regard to the extension around Morpeth, as long as the council refrains from approving wind farm applications, is noted. The council's view is that wind energy applications may or may not be compatible with Green Belt policy and must be considered on an individual basis to reflect national policy and guidance.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 38

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 38: Do you agree with the Council’s general approach to Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Comments ID

Council's response

Mrs Mary Murray

11379 I strongly support the proposal to extend the Green Belt, and believe that this proposal will play a key role in the preservation of Morpeth’s special setting and character, while preventing it merging with neighbouring settlements, and safeguarding the rural area from harmful encroachment. However these laudable and important aims are wholly incompatible with the siting within the proposal area of industrial wind power stations, and their associated infrastructure. I am very concerned therefore that NCC must not allow this important initiative to be jeopardised or compromised in the interim by approving wind farms in the proposal area.

Support for the general approach to Green Belt, particularly in regard to the extension around Morpeth, as long as the council refrains from approving wind farm applications, is noted. The council's view is that wind energy applications may or may not be compatible with Green Belt policy and must be considered on an individual basis to reflect national policy and guidance.

Mr David William Lindley Penn

11403 I strongly support the proposal to extend the Green Belt, and believe that this proposal will play a key role in the preservation of Morpeth’s special setting and character, while preventing it merging with neighbouring settlements, and safeguarding the rural area from harmful encroachment. However these laudable and important aims are wholly incompatible with the siting within the proposal area of industrial wind power stations, and their associated infrastructure. I am very concerned therefore that NCC must not allow this important initiative to be jeopardised or compromised in the interim by approving wind farms in the proposal area.

Support for the general approach to Green Belt, particularly in regard to the extension around Morpeth, as long as the council refrains from approving wind farm applications, is noted. The council's view is that wind energy applications may or may not be compatible with Green Belt policy and must be considered on an individual basis to reflect national policy and guidance.

Mrs Gay Penn

11416 I strongly support the proposal to extend the Green Belt, and believe that this proposal will play a key role in the preservation of Morpeth’s special setting and character, while preventing it merging with neighbouring settlements, and safeguarding the rural area from harmful encroachment. However these laudable and important aims are wholly incompatible with the siting within the proposal area of industrial wind power stations, and their associated infrastructure. I am very concerned therefore that NCC must not allow this important initiative to be jeopardised or compromised in the interim by approving wind farms in the proposal area.

Support for the general approach to Green Belt, particularly in regard to the extension around Morpeth, as long as the council refrains from approving wind farm applications, is noted. The council's view is that wind energy applications may or may not be compatible with Green Belt policy and must be considered on an individual basis to reflect national policy and guidance.

Mr David Richardson

11435 I strongly support the proposal to extend the Green Belt, and believe that this proposal will play a key role in the preservation of Morpeth’s special setting and character, while preventing it merging with neighbouring settlements, and safeguarding the rural area from harmful encroachment. However these laudable and important aims are wholly incompatible with the siting within the proposal area of industrial wind power stations, and their associated infrastructure. I am very concerned therefore that NCC must not allow this important initiative to be jeopardised or compromised in the interim by approving wind farms in the proposal area.

Support for the general approach to Green Belt, particularly in regard to the extension around Morpeth, as long as the council refrains from approving wind farm applications, is noted. The council's view is that wind energy applications may or may not be compatible with Green Belt policy and must be considered on an individual basis to reflect national policy and guidance.

Mr C I Kitchen

Mr Michael Cuncliffe

Mrs Yvonne Conchie Mr Elliot Taylor

Corbridge Village Trust

Shotley Low Quarter Parish Council

Mrs Wendy Green

Schedule of comments and responses

2776 Yes I agree with Approach paras 9.3 and 9.4. i.e. great importance to green belt, national guidance confirms that GB boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, boundaries needing to have permanence beyond plan period. No, do not agree with 9.6 Above principles should not be compromised by local erosion, and County should not 'welcome early submission of GB boundary alterations ' in the interests of development.

Support for the general approach to the Green Belt is noted as is the view that no Green Belt boundary review should take place. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. This will help to define Green belt boundaries through the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

1681 Any proposed alteration to green belt boundaries needs to pay attention to the purposes set out in para 9.1 and specifically, in relation to settlements such as Corbridge, to safeguard the countryside from encroachment and preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. 206 550

Support for the purpose of the Green Belt in relation to safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and preserving the setting and special character of historic towns is noted. Support noted Support noted

1069

Support noted

Page 39

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 38: Do you agree with the Council’s general approach to Green Belt? Full Name

Mr William Kiely Mr Tom Martin Ms Caroline Strugnell Mr Robert Ramsay Mrs Lisa Hamlin Mrs Lisa Hamlin Mrs Lisa Hamlin Mrs Lisa Hamlin Mr Brian Prickett Mr Jack A Feather

Mr Keith MurrayHetherington Mrs Barbara Martin Mr John Carpenter Mr Keith Redpath Mrs S Shanks Mr Frank Harrington Sir or Madam

Company / Agent Name (if Organisation (if applicable) applicable) Burgham Park Golf and Mr Tony Woodcock Leisure Ltd. Wylam Parish Council Bellway Homes Limited

Agent Details (if applicable)

Felton Parish Council Warkworth Parish Council Acklington Parish Council Thirston Parish Council Tritlington & West Chevington Parish Council Bavington Parish Council Morpeth & District Civic Society Miss Jane Wallis Bamburgh Parish Council

Council's response

1225 My client agrees with the general approach, and the objectives behind the extended designation 2200 2241 The Council's general approach to Green Belt, including the need for a localised review of Green Belt boundaries, is supported. 2848 5458 5759

Support noted

5958

Support noted

6120 6336 6519

Support noted Support noted Support noted

6989 We support the approach to Green Belt land.

Support noted

7178 We support the Council’s general approach to the Green Belt.

Support noted

8090 Green Belt (9.1 to 9.16). I agree with the Council’s general approach to Green Belt. 8363 Fairhurst generally agree with the LPA’s approach to Green Belt. 9266

Support noted Support noted Support noted

Support noted Support noted Support noted Support noted Support noted

Grainger Homes

Miss Jane Wallis

9535 10008 Fairhurst generally agree with Northumberland County Councils approach to the Greenbelt.

Support noted Support noted

Fergusons Transport

Miss Jane Wallis

10316 10420 Fairhurst generally agree with Northumberland County Councils approach to the Greenbelt.

Support noted Support noted

Mr John Harrison

Mrs Jane Nolan Mr Mark Bridgeman Mr Colin Matheson Mr Adrian Hinchcliffe Mr Robert Barnes

Comment Comments ID

Miss Jane Wallis Miss Jane Wallis Miss Jane Wallis Bywell Parish Council Dransfield Properties Ltd Mr Robert Barnes

Planning Prospects Ltd

10952 11034 11286 11455 409

Fairhurst generally agree with the LPA’s approach to Green Belt. Fairhurst generally agree with the LPA’s approach to Green Belt. Fairhurst generally agree with the LPA’s approach to Green Belt. The setting and character of Morpeth should be preserved as an important asset.

Mr David M Hobson

1387 Except that the purposes of the green belt listed in Para. 9.1 should include protecting the setting and character of ALL settlements, not just “historic towns― .

Neil and Tricia Hardy

11704 YES, except that the purposes of the green belt listed in Para. 9.1 should include protecting the setting and character of ALL settlements, not just “historic towns― .

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 40

Support noted Support noted Support noted Support noted Support noted and welcomed. Support noted. Core Strategy Issues and Options paragraph 9.1, bullet point 4, on preserving "the setting and special character of historic towns" describes existing policy that has already been approved in relation to the existing Northumberland Green Belt. It also reflects paragraph 80 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), March 2012. Support noted. Core Strategy Issues and Options paragraph 9.1, bullet point 4, on preserving "the setting and special character of historic towns" describes existing policy that has already been approved in relation to the existing Northumberland Green Belt. It also reflects paragraph 80 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), March 2012.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 38: Do you agree with the Council’s general approach to Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Mrs Ann Edwards

Mr Ian Armstrong Mr Ian Cansfield

Comment Comments ID

Council's response

3037 Extension of the Green Belt would be very welcome. Agree with earlier comment that all settlements' character and setting should be preserved and not just Morpeth. No planning should be approved in proposed Green Belt extension area until this is agreed.

Heddon-on-the-Wall Parish Council Allendale Estates and Esh Developments

12671 Mr Ian Cansfield

Cundall Planning

2641 For the Core Strategy to be flexible to changes in the economic outlook, we support the intention for a localised review of the Green Belt, and would welcome the opportunity to submit proposals for Green Belt boundary alterations in certain areas. As stated within the NPPF, any review of the Green Belt must be done in conjunction with the Local Plan strategy. The NPPF specifically states that Local Authorities must meet identified requirements within their local plan for sustainable development. A review of the localised Green Belt Boundaries would show a flexible approach in line with that which is taken throughout the whole of the draft Core Strategy document. The NPPF also states that the boundaries should not to be altered at the end of the development plan period, and therefore it is imperative that the Council takes this opportunity to consult on the existing localised boundaries, to ensure that key sustainable locations, which satisfy national, regional and local requirements are not omitted from the Local Plan, and therefore denied the opportunity to be promoted. This is especially important in areas where there are specific housing pressures such as affordable housing, and where the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment has failed to provide evidence of enough deliverable sites in key settlements.

Support noted. However in determining current and new planning applications, while material consideration may be given to the proposed Green Belt extension, decisions will continue to be based on existing Local Plan Policies until they are replaced by Core Strategy other Development Plan Document Policies. Support noted. Support noted as is the consultees request that they be allowed an opportunity to submit proposals for Green Belt boundary review in certain areas. Views from all representations will be considered. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage. Being retained on the consultation database, the consultees will automatically be invited to take part in future consultations.

Mrs Kathleen Mavin

Ponteland Town Council

9728 Yes but there is no reference to Ponteland and there should be one. Agree with paragraph 9.4 Support for the general approach to the Green re safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. The protection of the green belt is Belt is noted as is the view that Ponteland should essential. be mentioned specifically in the text. It is assumed that the consultees considers that protection should be achieved by not undertaking localised Green Belt boundary review. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Mr Michael Briggs

EnergieKontor UK Ltd

6724 The NPPF highlights that the general extent of Green Belts across the country is already established. It sets out that new Green Belts should only be established in "exceptional circumstances", for example when planning for larger scale development such as new settlements or major urban extensions. The NPPF further requires that, if proposing a new Green Belt, local planning authorities should: • demonstrate why normal planning and development management policies would not be adequate; • set out whether any major changes in circumstances have made the adoption of this exceptional measure necessary; • show what the consequences of the proposal would be for sustainable development; • demonstrate the necessity for the Green Belt and its consistency with Local Plans for adjoining areas; and • show how the Green Belt would meet the other objectives of the NPPF. In the absence of any such analysis or 'exceptional circumstances', it is inappropriate to seek amend the extent of the existing Green Belt. We do not therefore agree with the Council's approach to Green Belt.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 41

The council is of the view that the existing boundaries have been established and defined through regional, structure plan and local policies, while the extension to the Green Belt around Morpeth has been established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5. The council is now going through the process of defining boundaries as described in NPPF paragraph 85. The Council is also carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County and such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 38: Do you agree with the Council’s general approach to Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Mr John Dowson

Mr John Coxon

Emery Planning Partnership

Mr and Mrs P and D Barratt

Mr Simon Beeby

Strutt & Parker LLP

Schedule of comments and responses

Comment Comments ID

Council's response

7088 The principle of Green Belt additions around Morpeth was initiated in the Northumberland and The council is of the view that the existing National Park Joint Structure Plan 2005. Policy S5: Green Belt is the only extant Structure boundaries have been established and defined Plan policy. However whilst that plan was adopted in 2005 it was not prepared in accordance through regional, structure plan and local policies, with the 2004 Act, and as per paragraph 214 of the NPPF should be considered out of date. while the extension to the Green Belt around Whether the policy conflicts with the NPPF must be considered as part of the preparation of Morpeth has been established through the saved the Core Strategy. Since the adoption of the policy there has been two major step changes in Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure national planning policy relating to housing delivery: PPS3 and now the NPPF. The NPPF is Plan, 2005, Policy S5. The council is now going clear that objectively assessed housing needs must be met, and that plans should contribute through the process of defining boundaries as to delivering sustainable development. Paragraph 82 of the NPPF specifically states that described in NPPF paragraph 85. The Council is LPAs should show what the consequences of a Green Belt extension would be for sustainable also carrying out population modelling to assess development. Furthermore, since the Structure Plan was adopted in 2005 the housing the level of development required across the requirement in Northumberland has increased from an annual average of 810 (2006-2016) in County and such evidence will be used to define the Structure Plan to 885 (2004-2021) in the RSS. The Growth Point initiative increased the inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a requirement further. Since then, household projections have increased, whilst housing needs subsequent delivery or allocations stage in rural areas have become significantly greater as demonstrated by the acute levels of Development Plan Document. There will be affordable housing need reported in the 2010 SHMA- particularly in the south-west delivery opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the area (i.e. where the Green Belt extension is proposed). This indicates that the housing relevant stage. requirement is likely to be increased again. We consider that in light of the significant housing pressures now faced, the justification to extend the Green Belt around Morpeth should be abandoned. The need for the Green Belt extension against the NPPF objectives of the Green Belt is assessed below: - to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas – this could be suitably controlled by allocating sufficient land in the LDF and applying countryside policies outside of these areas. The NPPF advises that Green Belt additions are unnecessary where normal planning and development management policies would be adequate. - to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another – the nearest neighbouring towns are a significant distance from Morpeth and there is no prospect of them merging. To the northwest of Morpeth the villages are sparsely interspersed, as such there is no danger, or potential to merge into one another. - to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment – as above, this could be suitably controlled by allocating sufficient land in the LDF and applying countryside policies outside of these areas. - to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns – this can be appropriately controlled through 7651 Not agreed. This matter should be viewed in relation to para. 82 of NPPF which requires that The council is of the view that the existing new Green Belt extensions should “only be established in exceptional circumstances― . boundaries have been established and defined Essentially, the LPA has not demonstrated: - Why normal planning policies are not adequate, - through regional, structure plan and local policies, Described major changes of circumstance requiring such an exceptional measure, - Shown while the extension to the Green Belt around the consequences of such a measure on sustainable development, - Shown the necessity for Morpeth has been established through the saved such a measure, and, - Shown how the proposal meets other NPPF objectives. All of these Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure must be achieved before considering there to be such an exceptional circumstance and Plan, 2005, Policy S5. The council is now going therefore the proposal to increase the extent of the Green Belt should be removed from the through the process of defining boundaries as Core Strategy as it serves no meaningful purpose. This is not a policy to be welcomed in any described in NPPF paragraph 85. The Council is way and a reduction or removal of in the current Green Belt would be a more sensible also carrying out population modelling to assess approach. A Green Belt is too blunt an instrument for effective decision making in many cases the level of development required across the in rural areas. It would be preferable to have LPA’s empowered to make decisions based County and such evidence will be used to define rather more on an informed qualitative assessment of a proposal. Moreover, with the inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a demonstrably effective use of policies other than Green Belt imposition to protect open subsequent delivery or allocations stage countryside area it is considered that removal of the existing Green Belt would not result in an Development Plan Document. There will be undesirable urban sprawl, the nature of which it is the stated overarching intention of the opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the policy to prevent (para. 79 NPPF). This would in turn provide of a more considered approach relevant stage. to the sustainable development of Key Settlements as requirements suggest.

Page 42

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 38: Do you agree with the Council’s general approach to Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Mr & Mrs Byatt

Mr Chris Haggon

TNEI Services Ltd

Schedule of comments and responses

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Mr Andrew Moss

Wardhadaway

Comment Comments ID

Council's response

7762 Mr & Mrs Byatt do not agree with the Council's general approach to the Green Belt. The Northumberland Joint Structure Plan was prepared many years ago in a materially different economic climate. The RSS subsequently superseded most of the Northumberland Joint Structure Plan. The Government's clear policy intention is that regional strategies be revoked. In these circumstances Mr & Mrs Byatt consider the need and the appropriateness of a new Green Belt in this area must be reviewed. Reasons include that it is an established stance of the planning system that countryside be protected for its own sake. In the circumstances Mr & Mrs Byatt consider that if a new Green Belt is to be proposed, it is necessary for the Council to demonstrate why normal planning and development management policies would not be adequate, NPPF para 82. Following on from the above, as detailed in NPPF para 82, new Green Belts should only be established in exceptional circumstances. Whilst there could be a debate as to whether the Green Belt is 'new' or 'an extension', Mr & Mrs Byatt consider the tests in NPPF para 82 should be applied, the Local Plan offering the opportunity for a reassessment of whether it is sound for additional land to be subject of the Green Belt designation with its general presumption against most forms of development.

The council is of the view that the existing boundaries have been established and defined through regional, structure plan and local policies, while the extension to the Green Belt around Morpeth has been established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5. The council is now going through the process of defining boundaries as described in NPPF paragraph 85. The Council is also carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County and such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

7964 Exceptional circumstances have not been demonstrated to alter the Green Belt boundaries in accordance with paragraph 83 of the NPPF. Furthermore, it has not been demonstrated that the review of the Green Belt boundaries has taken into account the need to promote sustainable patterns of development, nor have the consequences of channelling development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt or towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary been demonstrated, in accordance with paragraph 84 of the NPPF. Compliance/consideration of the criteria listed at paragraph 85 of the NPPF has also not been justified.

The council is of the view that the existing boundaries have been established and defined through regional, structure plan and local policies, while the extension to the Green Belt around Morpeth has been established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5. The council is now going through the process of defining boundaries as described in NPPF paragraph 85. The Council is also carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County and such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Page 43

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 38: Do you agree with the Council’s general approach to Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Mr B George

JMD Developments

Schedule of comments and responses

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Comments ID

Council's response

Mr Simon Beeby

Strutt & Parker LLP

8452 Not agreed This matter should be viewed in relation to para. 82 of NPPF which requires that new Green Belt extensions should “only be established in exceptional circumstances― . Essentially, the LPA has not demonstrated:  Why normal planning policies are not adequate,  Described major changes of circumstance requiring such an exceptional measure,  Shown the consequences of such a measure on sustainable development,  Shown the necessity for such a measure, and,  Shown how the proposal meets other NPPF objectives. All of these must be achieved before considering there to be such an exceptional circumstance and therefore the proposal to increase the extent of the Green Belt should be removed from the Core Strategy as it serves no meaningful purpose. There is no need to extend the Green Belt. The previous policies designed to otherwise protect the open countryside have served the Local Authorities of the county well over the past decades and there would appear to be no robust argument for changing this to a more restrictive regime at this stage simply in the interests of creating a uniform approach across the county post unification. The emerging Local Plan will identify areas on urban fringes appropriate for larger scale development as required, which in any event will need to be safeguarded from Green Belt designation, and in more rural areas the absence of any notably inappropriate development to date in such areas adequately demonstrates the lack of need to add a further tier of bureaucracy to police this. Rural businesses, predominantly agriculture, will come under increased pressure to justify new development vital for their viable existence. Such blanket proposals do not take into account localised in-fill possibilities in rural areas that otherwise represent inoffensive and effective means of meeting needs. This is not a policy to be welcomed in any way and a reduction in the current Green Belt would be a sensible approach. A Green Belt is too blunt an instrument for effective decision making in many cases in rural areas. It would be preferable to have LPA’s empowered to make decisions based rather more on an informed qualitative assessment of a proposal.

The council is of the view that the existing boundaries have been established and defined through regional, structure plan and local policies, while the extension to the Green Belt around Morpeth has been established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5. The council is now going through the process of defining boundaries as described in NPPF paragraph 85. The Council is also carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County and such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Mr David Brocklehurst

Ward Hadaway

9423 At the current time, for the reasons set out below in question 41, our clients object to the proposed extension of the Green Belt around Morpeth and do not agree with the Green Belt boundaries proposed. We do not consider the Green Belt extension is necessary and consider that development can be controlled by other planning policy and landscape designations and through the use of settlement limits. We do not consider that as required by NPPF that the Plan has demonstrated exceptional circumstances to extend the current Green Belt boundaries that will stifle development and economic growth.

The council is of the view that the existing boundaries have been established and defined through regional, structure plan and local policies, while the extension to the Green Belt around Morpeth has been established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5. The council is now going through the process of defining boundaries as described in NPPF paragraph 85. The Council is also carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County and such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Page 44

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 38: Do you agree with the Council’s general approach to Green Belt? Full Name

Sir or Madam

Company / Organisation (if applicable) CHE Ltd

Schedule of comments and responses

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Ms Karen Read

Signet Planning

Comment Comments ID

Council's response

10207 We are instructed on behalf of CHE Limited to submit representations to the Northumberland Local Development Plan Core Strategy Issues and Options Document. CHE Limited has interest in land immediately to the west of Morpeth just beyond the settlement boundary. A plan is attached identifying the sites. Green Belt We wish to object to the strategic extension to the Green Belt at Morpeth. At paragraph 82 of the NPPF it states new Green Belt boundaries should only be established in exceptional circumstances, for example when planning for larger scale developments such as new settlements or major urban extensions. If proposing a new Green Belt, local planning authorities should: • Demonstrate why normal planning and development management policies would not be adequate; • Set out whether any major changes in circumstances have made the adoption of this exceptional measure necessary; • Show what the consequences of the proposal would be for sustainable development; • Demonstrate the necessity for the Green Belt and its consistency with local plans for adjoining areas; and • Show how the Green Belt would meet the other objectives of the framework. There is very limited evidence presented in the Issues and Options Core Strategy to demonstrate the proposed strategic extension meets the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy. The structure plan policy is dated and we have a fundamental concern that full consideration has not been given to this policy and it has simply been included without setting out a fully justified case. In particular, evidence needs to be made available regarding the criteria at the second and fourth bullet points above. Should the Council choose to continue with the Green Belt boundary change, it is vital when submitting the Core Strategy for examination it is considered ‘sound’ in that it is justified — with the plan being the most appropriate strategy, when considered against reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence. Furthermore, it must be clearly demonstrated that the new boundaries take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development as required by paragraph 84 of the NPPF. The Green Belt boundary should be drawn to safeguard sufficient land to accommodate the future expansion of Morpeth and ensure the Green Belt boundary once established does not require alteration as it should be capable of enduring beyond the plan period. Land to the west of Morpeth, as identified on the attached plan, provides that opportunity for future growth and we ask the council give full consideration to this. The Council should also review the boundaries of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt to ensure appropriate development can be

Page 45

The council is of the view that the existing boundaries have been established and defined through regional, structure plan and local policies, while the extension to the Green Belt around Morpeth has been established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5. The council is now going through the process of defining boundaries as described in NPPF paragraph 85. The Council is also carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County and such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 38: Do you agree with the Council’s general approach to Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Messrs G and D Brown

Mr Richard Garland

George F White

10904 We strongly disagree with the Council’s general approach to the Green Belt. Whilst we accept that Green Belt policy within the NPPF needs to be translated into the Northumberland Local Development Plan, the proposed extension to the Green Belt around Morpeth is entirely unnecessary. Paragraph 82 of the NPPF states that “new Green Belts should only be established in exceptional circumstances, for example when planning for larger scale development such as new settlements or major urban extensions. Paragraph 82 goes on to require Local Planning Authorities to (fulfil) a number a criteria when proposing a new Green Belt. These will be addressed in turn: - The Core Strategy does not at any point demonstrate or justify why normal planning and Development Management policies would not be adequate for the purpose of protecting the countryside from encroachment. - No major changes in circumstances have made the adoption of this exceptional measure necessary. No major urban extensions or new settlements have been planned and the land surrounding Morpeth is no more under threat from development than at any time previously. - The LPA has not demonstrated the consequences of the proposal for sustainable development in the area of proposed Green Belt or the rest of the County. The proposed Green Belt designation would restrict rural economic activity, diversification and tourism development to an unacceptable level and threaten the economic viability of the area. - There is no justification for the necessity for the Green Belt extension within the Core Strategy and no consideration of consistency with Policies for adjoining areas. - It has not been demonstrated that the Green Belt extension would meet the other objectives of the NPPF. Paragraph 9.4 of the NLDP sets out 4 reasons for the proposed Green Belt extension. None of these reasons amount to “exceptional circumstances― . The NPPF (paragraph 85, bullet point 6) requires LPAs to “define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent― . The proposed extension to the Green Belt does not relate to any physical features on the ground and does not fulfil this criterion. The lack of physical features against which the proposed boundary is drawn highlights the inappropriateness of the proposed Green Belt extension and the lack of justification for its extent.

The council is of the view that the existing boundaries have been established and defined through regional, structure plan and local policies, while the extension to the Green Belt around Morpeth has been established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5. The council is now going through the process of defining boundaries as described in NPPF paragraph 85. The Council is also carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County and such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Mr M. Moore

Mr Richard Garland

George F White

10972 We strongly disagree with the Council’s general approach to the Green Belt. Whilst we accept that Green Belt policy within the NPPF needs to be translated into the Northumberland Local Development Plan, the proposed extension to the Green Belt around Morpeth is entirely unnecessary. Paragraph 82 of the NPPF states that “new Green Belts should only be established in exceptional circumstances, for example when planning for larger scale development such as new settlements or major urban extensions. Paragraph 82 goes on to require Local Planning Authorities to (fulfil) a number a criteria when proposing a new Green Belt. These will be addressed in turn: - The Core Strategy does not at any point demonstrate or justify why normal planning and Development Management policies would not be adequate for the purpose of protecting the countryside from encroachment. - No major changes in circumstances have made the adoption of this exceptional measure necessary. No major urban extensions or new settlements have been planned and the land surrounding Morpeth is no more under threat from development than at any time previously. - The LPA has not demonstrated the consequences of the proposal for sustainable development in the area of proposed Green Belt or the rest of the County. The proposed Green Belt designation would restrict rural economic activity, diversification and tourism development to an unacceptable level and threaten the economic viability of the area. - There is no justification for the necessity for the Green Belt extension within the Core Strategy and no consideration of consistency with Policies for adjoining areas. - It has not been demonstrated that the Green Belt extension would meet the other objectives of the NPPF. Paragraph 9.4 of the NLDP sets out 4 reasons for the proposed Green Belt extension. None of these reasons amount to “exceptional circumstances― . The NPPF (paragraph 85, bullet point 6) requires LPAs to “define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent― . The proposed extension to the Green Belt does not relate to any physical features on the ground and does not fulfil this criterion. The lack of physical features against which the proposed boundary is drawn highlights the inappropriateness of the proposed Green Belt extension and the lack of justification for its extent.

The council is of the view that the existing boundaries have been established and defined through regional, structure plan and local policies, while the extension to the Green Belt around Morpeth has been established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5. The council is now going through the process of defining boundaries as described in NPPF paragraph 85. The Council is also carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County and such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Schedule of comments and responses

Comment Comments ID

Council's response

Page 46

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 38: Do you agree with the Council’s general approach to Green Belt? Full Name

Mrs Patricia Wilson

Company / Organisation (if applicable) Healey Parish Council

Mrs Patricia Wilson

Slaley Parish Council

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Comments ID

Council's response

9658 Despite the NPPF there need to be policies to protect the GB from excessive, or large-scale holiday and recreational developments. The scale of nearby settlements has to be taken into account, as well as traffic problems on minor roads and the adequacy of other services. Policies are needed to avoid a 'domino' effect where a beneficial development then demands other support developments etc.

Mr Cheesbrough

Mr Andrew Moss

Mr and Mrs Brewis

Dr Malcolm Bell

866 We submit this letter as Representations via Dr Malcolm Bell Ltd, on behalf of Mr and Mrs Brewis and family, who own a site at Allendale Road, Hexham, and whose site is both sustainable and close to the centre. The site is currently included within the overly restrictive Green Belt that surrounds Hexham, which, it appears from the logic of the plan, needs to be amended to allow for further growth in Hexham. We have previously sent letters in regard to this site and the Green Belt around Hexham to the Council, which we have also attached as an Annex to this letter for ease of reference. While we set out our Client’s comments for officers under question headings, as per the desired format, our responses should be considered against any other sections of the document which are relevant to our Clients’ site. The document recognises that a localised review of the Green Belt boundary may be required, and states the Council “would welcome early submission of any potential Green Belt boundary alterations.―Prior to the publication of this document, we contacted the Council to put forward our Client’s site as a potential exclusion from the Green Belt, in line with the Green Belt guidance provided within the NPPF. Our letter to the council along with supporting plans is contained within the Annex for your information. (SEE ATTACHMENTS)

The request for consideration of Green Belt boundary review of settlements, such as Hexham, is noted. As well as considering the specific sites in the SHLAA Review, evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Mr and Mrs Brewis

Dr Malcolm Bell

878 The Client agrees a localised review of the Green Belt is necessary to allow for development needs to be met. The council should work closely with the public to bring forward potential Green Belt boundary alterations, particularly people like the Brewis’s who have a sustainable site but is currently restricted by Green Belt policy. Morpeth should not be the only town with a planned boundary change as part of the Core Strategy. Consideration should be given to other Tier One settlements such as Hexham which would benefit from a Green Belt boundary review.

The request for consideration of Green Belt boundary review of settlements, such as Hexham, is noted. As well as considering the specific sites in the SHLAA Review, evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Schedule of comments and responses

Wardhadaway

The NPPF does continue to protect Green Belt from inappropriate development that affects the openness of the Green Belt and paragraph 88 requires local planning authorities to "ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt."• 7871 Despite the NPPF there need to be policies to protect the GB from excessive, or large-scale The NPPF does continue to protect Green Belt holiday and recreational developments. The scale of nearby settlements has to be taken into from inappropriate development that affects the account, as well as traffic problems on minor roads and the adequacy of other services. openness of the Green Belt and paragraph 88 Policies are needed to avoid a 'domino' effect where a beneficial development then demands requires local planning authorities to "ensure that other support developments etc. substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt."• 4000 Mr Cheesbrough agrees that there is a need for a localised review of the Green Belt to The request for consideration of Green Belt ensure that the Core Strategy's overall vision is achieved. It is noted from para 9.6 of the boundary review of Heddon on the Wall is noted. Consultation that the Council welcomes the early submission of any potential Green Belt As well as considering the specific sites in the boundary alterations. In response to this my client asks that SHLAA site 3584 (Antonine SHLAA Review, evidence of the need for change Walk, land to the rear) be removed from the Green Belt. This is necessary such that Heddon will be required to support any boundary changes on the Wall can accommodate sufficient levels of development to maintain and strengthen its proposed and the Council is carrying out role as a service centre in accordance with the emerging Development Principles for Tier 2 population modelling to assess the level of settlements. Mr Cheesbrough will now be looking at the detailed extent and precise development required across the County. Such boundaries of site 3584 and will likely revert back to the Council in relation to this as part of evidence will be used to define inset boundaries the preparation of the Core Strategy and / or the SHLAA update. via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Page 47

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 38: Do you agree with the Council’s general approach to Green Belt? Full Name

Mr James Littlewood

Ms Karen Carins

Company / Organisation (if applicable) Natural History Society of Northumbria

Stannington Parish Council

Mrs Joyce Casson

Schedule of comments and responses

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Comments ID

Council's response

10095 Any changes to Green Belt land will prove controversial. Experience in Newcastle/Gateshead has shown that the public do not engage well with consultations on issues such “Core Strategy―and as a result often remain unaware what is being proposed by the planning authority until it hits the headlines. Our view is that a separate consultation on future Green Belt boundaries should take place as this will properly engage people and ensure that all views are considered. We should also point out that a change in greenbelt boundaries will actually make it harder in future to better manage greenbelt for positive uses (as proposed in para 9.6) as developers with land banks will consider that there will be other boundary changes at some point in the future and they will not want to do anything which might prejudice future development (such as encourage wildlife or public access).

The suggestion that localised review of Green Belt to accommodate development growth need will encourage developers to land-bank swathes of Green Belt is noted. However the council is likely to consider only minor adjustments around existing settlements rather than major deletions between settlements. While this may indeed prove to be controversial the council considers that the public needs to be consulted on Green Belt in the context of other Core Strategy related issues such as green infrastructure, protection of the natural and built environment, housing need, economic development and spatial distribution. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

6811 National guidance confirms that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. Why would the council wish to extend the Green Belt when there is no need for change and there are no exceptional circumstances. This approach to extend the Green Belt will work against rural communities stifling businesses and development. The only positive effect would be for Northumberland County Council, it would cut the amount of planning applications, cut down the cost of maintaining the infrastructure and keep services to a minimum. It will guarantee a decline in rural settlements. This approach contradicts all the previous statements made in this consultation referring to helping the rural economy. It makes this consultation unsound.

The view that no extension of the Green Belt boundary should take place around Morpeth is noted. However it should also be noted that it will still be possible to build new houses within the Green Belt, as long as development complies with national policy and other Core Strategy policies. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

4699 With respect to Hexham, future significant housing developments need to take account of employment opportunities. It is most likely that additional housing developments in Hexham, will require travel to employment in Tyne and Wear, resulting in additional road congestion and an increase in the carbon footprint. Housing development should only be considered in close proximity to employment opportunities. Additional housing on the outskirts of Hexham, will inevitably result in increased car usage, adding to the existing congestion difficulties.

The view that no Green Belt boundary review should take place around Hexham is noted as is concern that lack of local jobs will increase unsustainable commuter travel based development. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Page 48

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 38: Do you agree with the Council’s general approach to Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Comments ID

Council's response

Prof. Richard Walker

5776 I feel it is inappropriate for further Green Belt development around Ponteland as it would affect its unique nature and increase pressure on schools, health services and especially the roads, which are already very congested.

The view that no Green Belt boundary review should take place around Ponteland is noted. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Ian & Julie Gallon

7815 • Green Belt land in and around Ponteland should not be touched nor should its assessment as Green Belt land be changed. It was clear from the workshop that this was without doubt the most important issue to the villagers in attendance at the workshop. Ponteland is a wonderful place to live because of its beautiful surroundings and village charm and the character of our wonderful VILLAGE will be destroyed forever if the Green Belt land in and around Ponteland is built on. We can see no exceptional circumstances in Ponteland to re-assess the status of the Green Belt land in and surrounding Ponteland and then destroying this forever by the development of new housing. We as a generation must give consideration to the effect that the constant reduction of our countryside, wildlife habitats, workable farm land together with the increase in pollution that future development will bring will have on future generations. We in Britain seem quick to criticise other countries less fortunate than ours for destroying countryside, wildlife habitats, farm land, etc but this is exactly what is being proposed in and around Ponteland. As residents of Cheviot View backing on to Ponteland SHLAA Site 3176 we see deer, foxes, woodpeckers, pheasants and other wildlife on that Green Belt Site. Development of the Site and other Green Belt land in and around Ponteland will obviously destroy the habitat the wildlife currently enjoys. If building is necessary in Ponteland surely development of brownfield sites whilst more expensive and time consuming to develop is the correct way forward not only for the present but also for the future.

The view that no Green Belt boundary review should take place around Ponteland is noted. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Mr and Mrs J and H Mole

9510 Disagree that greenbelt can be used to build in exceptional circumstances. It should not be used under any circumstances. Doing so would jeopardise the habitats of numerous species of wildlife. In and around Ponteland it is home to red squirrels, bats, badgers, deer, pheasants and many many more, along with wild plants which should all be protected. The purpose of the greenbelt is to safeguard our countryside from over building and to keep villages as just that, villages and not large sprawling estates/developments such as Cramlington. This should be adhered to in Ponteland.

The view that no Green Belt boundary review should take place around Ponteland is noted. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 49

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 38: Do you agree with the Council’s general approach to Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Comments ID

Council's response

W Boone

12254 Over many years residents both ‘Village’ and Darras Hall have fought against massive The view that no Green Belt boundary review housing extensions and want to prevent it becoming an urban sprawl. It should not become a should take place around Ponteland is noted. suburb of Newcastle Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Miss Lauren Mole

12534 I live in the village of Ponteland and I would like to grow up with Ponteland as a peaceful place, rather than a crowded, busy town. I think Ponteland is perfect, it doesn't need 500+ more houses, it needs nothing. I like to wake up in the morning and see the fields stretching out before me, sometimes with deer running around in them, I like to go to sleep at night hearing an owl hooting and birds singing, I don't want to look out my window and have my view obscured by hundreds of houses and to be kept awake at night by even more traffic speeding down Cheviot View and Rotary Way. The schools will be overloaded and the roads even more so. Ponteland and its residents would be changed forever- and not for the better. The beautiful fields are what add to Ponteland's unique beauty and without them, I am sure most citizens would be turned away and won't remain here much longer. One of my main concerns is the wildlife. Due to the vast area of land, many animals have found home in Ponteland and I don't want to face the facts that hundreds of animals will lose their habitats and even more, their lives. Doesn't it worry you that most animals are getting by very scarcely and by going through with this, you would be endangering even more animals and damaging the environment permanently? Without our wildlife, the rare beauty of Ponteland will end up like so many other heartless, ugly, concrete towns. The houses are pointless. They would be hardly affordable for young people now, because my parents had to work for years to get enough money to buy a house here to bring me up somewhere special, but very soon, but a few sales down the line, the prices are going to rocket, and then will they be affordable? No. So leave our town be, because no one wants these houses, they won't be any use to us, because when I'm older, I want to bring my children up in a beautiful, special village, Ponteland, but the quiet, innocent Ponteland. We all do and it’s so rare to find. I hope you notice how strongly our fellow Ponteland citizens are protesting against this, how many meetings are being held by not only our town council, but by the local residents of Cheviot View and Ridgley Drive, how many hours we are giving up to save our precious, beloved village. We won't go down without a fight, don't take our beautiful home away from us.

The view that no Green Belt boundary review should take place around Ponteland is noted. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

5810 It is imperative that the Green Belt around Ponteland is preserved as it is one of the aspects that makes Ponteland a special place to live. The roads would not cope with any additional traffic - the main roads get extremely congested already. The whole atmosphere of Ponteland would change and the leisure, education and health facilities would be totally overstretched if there was a significant increase in the population.

The view that no Green Belt boundary review should take place around Ponteland is noted. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Mrs Caroline Walker

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 50

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 38: Do you agree with the Council’s general approach to Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Mrs Jennifer Ham

Mrs PM Williams

Broomley and Stocksfield Parish Council

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Comments ID

Council's response

1405 I am a resident of Ponteland of some 42 years and wish to place on record, where appropriate, my objections to any change of policy which would mean erosion of whatever areas of Green Belt we already have in existence. This is not “nimbyism―on my part but an attempt to protect the green belt areas for the sake of future generations . I understand that Planning wise, Ponteland is classed as “ an Inset in the Green Belt― , and I feel that this should remain so. I do not feel that any Green Belt Land around the Town should be released or have its status changed particularly as urban sprawl would then occur stretching out from Newcastle upon Tyne. From the Airport northwestwards on the A696 the rural character of Northumberland gradually becomes apparent the further one travels. Ponteland, as I understand it , has already some years ago released 62 hectares of greenbelt for future development of Newcastle Airport.

The view that no Green Belt boundary review should take place around Ponteland is noted. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

2258 No. There is a need to safeguard the countryside from encroachment in many parts of Northumberland, not only in Morpeth. The Green Belt boundary should remain as it is.

The view that no Green Belt boundary review should take place is noted. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Mr Peter Walton

5871 The established Green Belts should be retained. There are no exceptional circumstances not The view that no Green Belt boundary review to retain tham. There will be no great migration of industry or people into Northumberland in should take place is noted. Evidence of the need the coming years. Small and single developments should be allowed in the countryside. for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Mr Mike Brown

6244 Given Newcastle's proposals to release geen belt between Kingston Park and Callerton for The view that no Green Belt boundary review building it is important to the character of Ponteland that it's own green belt is not significantly should take place is noted. Evidence of the need reduced. for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 51

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 38: Do you agree with the Council’s general approach to Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Comments ID

Council's response

Mr and Mrs Peter and Lorraine Bartholomew

6449 Disagree that greenbelt can be used to build in exceptional circumstances. It should not be used under any. Doing so would jeopardise the habitats of numerous species of wildlife. In and around Ponteland the countryside is home to red squirrels, bats, badgers, deer, pheasants and many other animals, along with wild plants, which should all be protected. The purpose of the greenbelt is to "safeguard the countryside from encroachment, and preserve the setting and special character of areas". In Ponteland this should be adhered to.

Mr Alan Varley

6751 Green Belt boundaries around Ponteland must be protected and preserved in their entirety. The view that no Green Belt boundary review No tinkering should be made to the Green Belt around Ponteland. There are no development should take place is noted. Evidence of the need needs in the Green Belt. NO DEVELOPMENT WHATSOEVER IN THE GREEN BELT for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Dr Paul Quigley

9428 The council should not propose any alterations to existing green belt zones

Mr and Mrs Michael and Helen Bradley

Schedule of comments and responses

11573 We wish to make the following observations about the proposed changes to the Green Belt: The Green Belt has served this country well and eroding it defeats its purpose. Development on the Green Belt will not be 'appropriate'• . In fact, no development should be permitted at all. No agricultural land should be used for housing. It should be retained and used to ensure food security at a time when the UK is having to deal with overpopulation and is increasingly subject to the extremes of climate change. Covering the fields with houses is both short sighted and foolish.

Page 52

The view that no Green Belt boundary review should take place is noted. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

The view that no Green Belt boundary review should take place is noted. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage. The view that no Green Belt boundary review should take place is noted. The Council does not view the Green Belt as a tool to stop development however evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 38: Do you agree with the Council’s general approach to Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Comments ID

Council's response

Mr James Matthews

11654 The existing green belt boundary should not be changed.

The view that no Green Belt boundary review should take place is noted. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Dr Genevieve Quayle

11717 The existing green belt area should not be changed and there should not be any consideration to redefining it in or around Ponteland. The green belt around Ponteland serves numerous important functions – it works as a natural flood defence; it houses several species of endangered animals; it helps keep Northumberland’s identity as a highly desirable place to live and protects the characters of its villages. It also distinguishes Ponteland from Newcastle. To change the boundaries leaves it open to becoming part of the urban sprawl from Newcastle and the numerous negatives that come with this.

The view that no Green Belt boundary review should take place is noted. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Ms Carole Davies

11919 I object to the proposals to allow housing on the Green Belt because: - these policies are contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework which attaches great importance to Green Belts. - the resulting urban sprawl will undermine the Green Belt's characteristics openness and permanence. - Green Belt's assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the reuse of brown field sites. - the large areas of “safeguarded land―for future housing will exacerbate the urban sprawl and loss of village/settlement identity. - the plans will cause irreparable harm to wildlife habitats and put endangered species at risk. - the population and household projections allowed for are excessive, and the housing need overstated. - the proposals fail to make best use of brown field sites. No Green Belt should be developed until ALL brown field sites have been exhausted. Permitting house development on these sites will lead to: - the loss of ecologically valuable land. - urban sprawl and encroachment on the countryside. - severe traffic congestion . - the loss of semi-rural village/settlement identities. stress on local schools, doctors surgeries and other facilities. - the housing proposals are unsustainable and will cause traffic congestion and pollution.

The view that no Green Belt boundary review should take place is noted. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Mr Richard Davies

11926 I object to the proposals to allow housing on the Green Belt because: - these policies are contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework which attaches great importance to Green Belts. - the resulting urban sprawl will undermine the Green Belt's characteristics openness and permanence. - Green Belt's assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the reuse of brown field sites. - the large areas of “safeguarded land―for future housing will exacerbate the urban sprawl and loss of village/settlement identity. - the plans will cause irreparable harm to wildlife habitats and put endangered species at risk. - the population and household projections allowed for are excessive, and the housing need overstated. - the proposals fail to make best use of brown field sites. No Green Belt should be developed until ALL brown field sites have been exhausted. Permitting house development on these sites will lead to: - the loss of ecologically valuable land. - urban sprawl and encroachment on the countryside. - severe traffic congestion . - the loss of semi-rural village/settlement identities. stress on local schools, doctors surgeries and other facilities. - the housing proposals are unsustainable and will cause traffic congestion and pollution.

The view that no Green Belt boundary review should take place is noted. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 53

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 38: Do you agree with the Council’s general approach to Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Comments ID

Council's response

Ms Janet Grace

11936 I object to the proposals to allow housing on the Green Belt because: - these policies are contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework which attaches great importance to Green Belts. - the resulting urban sprawl will undermine the Green Belt's characteristics openness and permanence. - Green Belt's assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the reuse of brown field sites. - the large areas of “safeguarded land―for future housing will exacerbate the urban sprawl and loss of village/settlement identity. - the plans will cause irreparable harm to wildlife habitats and put endangered species at risk. - the population and household projections allowed for are excessive, and the housing need overstated. - the proposals fail to make best use of brown field sites. No Green Belt should be developed until ALL brown field sites have been exhausted. Permitting house development on these sites will lead to: - the loss of ecologically valuable land. - urban sprawl and encroachment on the countryside. - severe traffic congestion . - the loss of semi-rural village/settlement identities. stress on local schools, doctors surgeries and other facilities. - the housing proposals are unsustainable and will cause traffic congestion and pollution.

The view that no Green Belt boundary review should take place is noted. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

E A Hill

11954 I object to the proposals to allow housing on the Green Belt because: - these policies are contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework which attaches great importance to Green Belts. - the resulting urban sprawl will undermine the Green Belt's characteristics openness and permanence. - Green Belt's assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the reuse of brown field sites. - the large areas of “safeguarded land―for future housing will exacerbate the urban sprawl and loss of village/settlement identity. - the plans will cause irreparable harm to wildlife habitats and put endangered species at risk. - the population and household projections allowed for are excessive, and the housing need overstated. - the proposals fail to make best use of brown field sites. No Green Belt should be developed until ALL brown field sites have been exhausted. Permitting house development on these sites will lead to: - the loss of ecologically valuable land. - urban sprawl and encroachment on the countryside. - severe traffic congestion . - the loss of semi-rural village/settlement identities. stress on local schools, doctors surgeries and other facilities. - the housing proposals are unsustainable and will cause traffic congestion and pollution.

The view that no Green Belt boundary review should take place is noted. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

P J Hill

11959 I object to the proposals to allow housing on the Green Belt because: - these policies are contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework which attaches great importance to Green Belts. - the resulting urban sprawl will undermine the Green Belt's characteristics openness and permanence. - Green Belt's assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the reuse of brown field sites. - the large areas of “safeguarded land―for future housing will exacerbate the urban sprawl and loss of village/settlement identity. - the plans will cause irreparable harm to wildlife habitats and put endangered species at risk. - the population and household projections allowed for are excessive, and the housing need overstated. - the proposals fail to make best use of brown field sites. No Green Belt should be developed until ALL brown field sites have been exhausted. Permitting house development on these sites will lead to: - the loss of ecologically valuable land. - urban sprawl and encroachment on the countryside. - severe traffic congestion . - the loss of semi-rural village/settlement identities. stress on local schools, doctors surgeries and other facilities. - the housing proposals are unsustainable and will cause traffic congestion and pollution.

The view that no Green Belt boundary review should take place is noted. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 54

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 38: Do you agree with the Council’s general approach to Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Comments ID

Council's response

A Moorhead

12086 I object to the proposals to allow housing on the Green Belt because: - these policies are contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework which attaches great importance to Green Belts. - the resulting urban sprawl will undermine the Green Belt's characteristics openness and permanence. - Green Belt's assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the reuse of brown field sites. - the large areas of “safeguarded land―for future housing will exacerbate the urban sprawl and loss of village/settlement identity. - the plans will cause irreparable harm to wildlife habitats and put endangered species at risk. - the population and household projections allowed for are excessive, and the housing need overstated. - the proposals fail to make best use of brown field sites. No Green Belt should be developed until ALL brown field sites have been exhausted. Permitting house development on these sites will lead to: - the loss of ecologically valuable land. - urban sprawl and encroachment on the countryside. - severe traffic congestion . - the loss of semi-rural village/settlement identities. stress on local schools, doctors surgeries and other facilities. - the housing proposals are unsustainable and will cause traffic congestion and pollution.

The view that no Green Belt boundary review should take place is noted. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Mrs A Trevelyan

12154 I object to the proposals to allow housing on the Green Belt because: - these policies are contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework which attaches great importance to Green Belts. - the resulting urban sprawl will undermine the Green Belt's characteristics openness and permanence. - Green Belt's assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the reuse of brown field sites. - the large areas of “safeguarded land―for future housing will exacerbate the urban sprawl and loss of village/settlement identity. - the plans will cause irreparable harm to wildlife habitats and put endangered species at risk. - the population and household projections allowed for are excessive, and the housing need overstated. - the proposals fail to make best use of brown field sites. No Green Belt should be developed until ALL brown field sites have been exhausted. Permitting house development on these sites will lead to: - the loss of ecologically valuable land. - urban sprawl and encroachment on the countryside. - severe traffic congestion . - the loss of semi-rural village/settlement identities. stress on local schools, doctors surgeries and other facilities. Roads are already in very bad state of repair, more traffic will make it worse. - the housing proposals are unsustainable and will cause traffic congestion and pollution. The schools are already full and serious consideration must be given to this and doctors surgeries.

The view that no Green Belt boundary review should take place is noted. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

E Trevelyn

12155 I object to the proposals to allow housing on the Green Belt because: - these policies are contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework which attaches great importance to Green Belts. - the resulting urban sprawl will undermine the Green Belt's characteristics openness and permanence. - Green Belt's assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the reuse of brown field sites. - the large areas of “safeguarded land―for future housing will exacerbate the urban sprawl and loss of village/settlement identity. - the plans will cause irreparable harm to wildlife habitats and put endangered species at risk. - the population and household projections allowed for are excessive, and the housing need overstated. - the proposals fail to make best use of brown field sites. No Green Belt should be developed until ALL brown field sites have been exhausted. Permitting house development on these sites will lead to: - the loss of ecologically valuable land. - urban sprawl and encroachment on the countryside. - severe traffic congestion . - the loss of semi-rural village/settlement identities. stress on local schools, doctors surgeries and other facilities. - the housing proposals are unsustainable and will cause traffic congestion and pollution.

The view that no Green Belt boundary review should take place is noted. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 55

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 38: Do you agree with the Council’s general approach to Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Mr James Reid

Trustees of Stephen Mr Andrew Moss Middleton Will Trust (c/o Ward Hadaway)

Councillor Mr John Robert Potts

Blyth Town Council

Schedule of comments and responses

Wardhadaway

Comment Comments ID

Council's response

9888 BDW have no specific comment on the general approach, but support NCC's view that a localised Green Belt review is required to meet the overall strategy of the plan and Northumberland's housing requirement. Specific proposals for a Green Belt alteration to allow land around West Farm, Ponteland to be released for development are provided at Appendix 2.

Support for localised review around Ponteland is noted. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

2813 The Trustees do not agree with the Council's general approach to the Green Belt. The Northumberland Joint Structure Plan was prepared many years ago and in a materially different economic climate. The RSS subsequently superseded most of the Northumberland Joint Structure Plan. The Government's clear policy intention is that regional strategies be revoked and in these circumstances the Trustees consider the need and the appropriateness of a new Green Belt in this area must be reviewed. Reasons for this include that it is an established stance of the planning system that countryside be protected for its own sake. In the circumstances the Trustees consider that if a new Green Belt is to be proposed, it is necessary for the Council to demonstrate why normal planning and development management policies would not be adequate, NPPF para 82. Following on from the above as detailed in NPPF para 82, new Green Belts should only be established in exceptional circumstances. Whilst there could be a debate as to whether the Green Belt is 'new' or 'an extension', the Trustees consider the tests detailed in NPPF para 82 should be applied, the Local Plan offering the opportunity for a reassessment of whether it is sound in a forward looking Plan for additional land to be subject of the Green Belt designation with its presumption against development. Without prejudice to the above, if the Council decide to proceed with the designation of additional land as Green Belt, decisions will need to be taken as to how existing villages would be treated. In this respect the Trustees consider that tier 1, 2 and 3 settlements should be inset from the Green Belt and development control policies included within the Plan allowing for small scale development to maintain and enhance local services and facilities.

Rejection of the Council's general approach to Green Belt is noted. The council is of the view that the existing boundaries have been established and defined through regional, structure plan and local policies, while the extension to the Green Belt around Morpeth has been established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5. The council is now going through the process of defining boundaries as described in NPPF paragraph 85. In addition the Council is currently carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County and evidence of development need will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

4105 Around Blyth we would want to retain the green belt between the town and Seaton Valley and Cramlington and to resist development upstream along the riverside. However the extension of the town boundary to allow development from Bebside to Bedlington along the A193may be appropriate.

The council considers that because the Green Belt boundaries in the south east of Northumberland were defined by relatively recent Local Plan policies review of these boundaries at this stage could not be justified.

Page 56

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Consultation point: Defining Green Belt boundaries to Morpeth Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Mr Jon Tweddell

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Title ID 775 Defining Green Belt boundaries to Morpeth

Mr and Mrs Peter and Lorraine Richardson

Comments

Council's response

Page 56 refers to the Green Belt. The client disagrees with the extent of the Green Belt suggested. If the main purpose of this is to prevent Morpeth from merging with other settlements it is considered that the Green Belt boundary could be drawn more tightly around the existing built-up area of Morpeth. The land around Morpeth is already protected, to some degree, by current countryside policies and other Government guidance. Land surrounding Morpeth is generally open fields. The current 'settlement boundary' is drawn tightly around the built-up area. Any proposals for new development outside the settlement boundary and on greenfield land are generally discouraged by the Council under current policy.

Comment noted. The Council's view is that the Green Belt extension around Morpeth was established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5. Through the Core Strategy the council is now going through the process of defining boundaries in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 85. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

1298 Defining Green Belt boundaries to Morpeth

A home on the edge of a village like Ulgham can be seperated from the village if the green Support for a Green Belt boundary review at a belt is to tight to the village, the green belt needs to be loosened to go around that home, and localised level across the County, is noted. round of the village. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Mr Alan Hunter

English Heritage

7515 Defining Green Belt boundaries to Morpeth

Paragraph 9.10 - makes reference to the development potential of the St. George's Hospital site. English Heritage has previously expressed the view that the emerging scheme for it does not make best use of the existing heritage assets, and we would again urge a more conservation-led approach.

This comment is in line with proposed policy.

Mr Chris Haggon

TNEI Services Ltd

7967 Defining Green Belt boundaries to Morpeth

Paragraph 9.7 - It is not considered that saved policy S5 of the JSP provides enough guidance alone in justifying and defining detailed Green Belt boundary amendments. Evidence base document ‘Northumberland Key Land Use Impact Study Part B – Proposed Extension of the Green Belt Around Morpeth (September 2010)’ is out of date and a thorough Green Belt Review is required. Paragraph 9.11 - The approach stated is acknowledged for both the inner and outer boundaries; however it falls short of explaining the proposed Green Belt extension outer boundary to the north of Morpeth and Pegswood and the extension to the west of the A1.

Comment noted. The Council's view is that the Green Belt extension around Morpeth was established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5. Through the Core Strategy the council is now going through the process of defining boundaries in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 85. The Council would welcome further information with regard to any specific reasons for the Key Land use Impact Study, referred to above, being considered out of date.

Ms Naomi Waite

Northumberland Wildlife Trust

8692 Defining Green Belt boundaries to Morpeth

Para 9.10. It is not clear why this paragraph has been included here. It appears to be an individual planning issue.

Paragraph 9.10 was included at this point to explain the development potential of the north of Morpeth, which is if significance when considering the definition of Green Belt boundaries that will last beyond the Plan period.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 57

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Consultation point: Defining Green Belt boundaries to Morpeth Full Name

Mr James Hopkins

Company / Organisation (if applicable) Coriolis Energy

Schedule of comments and responses

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Title ID 9462 Defining Green Belt boundaries to Morpeth

Comments

Council's response

There appears to be an inconsistency between the desired goals of preventing town merging It is not clear what specific conflicts the to the northeast, southeast and south on the one hand, and the boundary of the proposed consultees is referring to in this comment. extension on the other.

Page 58

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Consultation point: Figure 9.2 - Proposed Green Belt extension outer boundary options around Morpeth Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Number ID

Title

Comments

Council's response

Mrs Susan Cansdale

4937 Figure 9.2

Proposed Green Belt extension outer boundary options around Morpeth

The Green Belt should be left where it is now and not extended. Each proposed development Comment is noted. The Council's view is that the should be judged on its own merit. Suitable sites for development in all settlements should be Green Belt extension around Morpeth was inset and definitely not washed over. established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5. Through the Core Strategy the council is now going through the process of defining boundaries in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 85. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent 'delivery' or 'allocations' stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Mr Peter Heatherington

8789 Figure 9.2

Proposed Green Belt extension outer boundary options around Morpeth

Support for the outermost boundary (Option 2) on the western outer boundary is noted.

R & K Howard

2172 Figure 9.2

Proposed Green Belt extension outer boundary options around Morpeth

We wish to express our support for the proposed extension to the Green Belt. Referring specifically to Figure 9.2 of the document, we believe that the Western Boundary should be extended from the Option 1 proposal to the Option 2 boundary so as to include the settlements of Middleton and Longwitton which are similar in character to Hartburn and Netherwitton (which themselves are already protected by the Option 1 proposal). We would like to add our support to Option 2 in extending the green belt area of the western boundary of Morpeth in the document outlined in figure 9.2. The area marked between Option 1 and 2 is an area of natural beauty which consists mainly of agricultural land with a few scattered individual houses. It is an area enjoyed by many walkers and cyclists in increasing numbers. It is difficult to imagine what kind of development in this area would enhance or benefit either in terms of employment or amenity. There is a a very limited public bus service, no shop, school or doctor between Netherwittion and Belsay to service any increase in the population. This extension of the green belt would ensure that an unspoilt area of our region would be safe from speculative developers for generations to come.

2526 Figure 9.2

Proposed Green Belt extension outer boundary options around Morpeth Proposed Green Belt extension outer boundary options around Morpeth

Pleased to have been left out of the Green Belt area.

Support for all boundary options due to their having left Nunnykirk out of the Green Belt is noted.

The Green Belt should include land south of Hartford Bridge, Hartford Hall estate in order to protect the green corridor along the river Blyth and support Plessey Woods country park.

Comment noted that Green Belt should be extended to include land south of Hartford Bridge. The Wansbeck Local Plan that defined the first part of the extension of the Tyne & Wear Green Belt northwards is relatively recent and therefore additional extensions over and above that the extension around Morpeth, established by the saved Structure Plan Policy S5, would have to be justified as new Green Belt to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Mrs S Rollitt

Nunnykirk Parish Council

Mrs Elizabeth Lawson

Schedule of comments and responses

4495 Figure 9.2

Page 59

Support for outer boundary option 2, western side, is noted.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Consultation point: Figure 9.2 - Proposed Green Belt extension outer boundary options around Morpeth Full Name

Ms Caroline Strugnell

Company / Organisation (if applicable) Bellway Homes Limited

Schedule of comments and responses

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Number ID 2242 Figure 9.2

Title

Comments

Proposed Green Belt extension outer boundary options around Morpeth

We would welcome clarification on what evidence has informed the two alternative options for Request for clarification noted. The Council's view the western and northern outer Morpeth Green Belt boundaries (Figure9.2) to inform comment is that the Green Belt extension around Morpeth on which is the more appropriate. was established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5. Through the Core Strategy the council is now going through the process of defining boundaries in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 85. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Page 60

Council's response

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 39: Is the proposed approach to the outer Morpeth Green Belt boundary appropriate? Do you have a preference for Option 1 or Option 2? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Mrs Brenda Turland

Mr Robin Wood Councillor Jim Scott

Mr Chris Offord

R&KWood Planning on Mr Robin Wood behalf of various clients Ulgham Parish Council

Chris Offord Consultancy

R & K Wood Planning LLP

Comment Response ID Agree with approach? 6603 No

Response Option 1 or Option 2? Option 1

Comments

Council's response

Option 1 looks to be a better configuration than Option 2, which looks very bitty with irregular add-ons. An Option 3 could be considered by joining up the North-west corner of Option 2 (Northern boundary) with the North-west corner of Option 2 (western boundary) therefore proving a much clearer indication of Green Belt land. Conclusion: As things stand I feel Option 1 would be my preference.

Rejection of proposed approach noted. Also noted is support for option 1 and comments on northern and western options. The Council's view is that the Green Belt extension around Morpeth was established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5. The suggested link would push the Green Belt into the former Alnwick District Council however regional plans and the Structure Plan only established the Green Belt extension in the former Castle Morpeth Borough.

4907

No

Option 1

5539

Yes

Option 1

The boundary, particularly to the west is not required to extend this far west in order to achieve the purpose of a a green belt. Eastern boundary to extend to the railway line at Stobswood.

Rejection of proposed approach noted. Also noted is support for option 1. Support for proposed approach is noted. Also noted is support for option 1 and the view that the Green Belt should extend north up to the railway line at Stobswood. The council's view is that the proposed boundary options increase the width of the Green Belt sufficiently to support the purposes of extending the Green Belt around Morpeth and the proposed eastern boundary is a practical interpretation of the description in the Structure Plan: "...and west of Widdrington Station, excluding the Stobswood Opencast site". However the council would welcome discussion with the Parish Council at the Core Strategy Preferred Options stage.

3045

Yes

Option 1

I agree with the general extent of the Green Belt but feel it does not need to go further west than Hartburn.

Support for proposed approach is noted. Also noted is support for option 1 is noted as are comments. Support for proposed approach and option 1 is noted as are comments.

Fairhurst prefer Option 1 because it is considered to best reflect the purpose of the Green Belt, as defined by the NPPF and sits most comfortably with the overall vision for the Core Strategy and the general approach to Green Belt in the County. Option 1 forms a logical boundary and provides sufficient protection. Further extension as part of Option 2, would only prove to be barrier to sustainable economic growth and delivering housing. Fairhurst prefer Option 1 because it is considered to best reflect the purpose of the Green Support for proposed approach and option 1 is Belt, as defined by the NPPF and sits most comfortably with the overall vision for the Core noted as are comments. Strategy and the general approach to Green Belt in the County. Option 1 forms a logical boundary and provides sufficient protection. Further extension as part of Option 2, would only prove to be a barrier to sustainable economic growth and delivering housing.

Mr Keith Redpath

Miss Jane Wallis

8366

Yes

Option 1

Mrs Jane Nolan

Miss Jane Wallis

10953

Yes

Option 1

Mr Mark Bridgeman

Miss Jane Wallis

11035

Yes

Option 1

Fairhurst prefer Option 1 because it is considered to best reflect the purpose of the Green Support for proposed approach and option 1 is Belt, as defined by the NPPF and sits most comfortably with the overall vision for the Core noted as are comments. Strategy and the general approach to Green Belt in the County. Option 1 forms a logical boundary and provides sufficient protection. Further extension as part of Option 2, would only prove to be a barrier to sustainable economic growth and delivering housing.

Mr Colin Matheson

Miss Jane Wallis

11287

Yes

Option 1

Fairhurst prefer Option 1 because it is considered to best reflect the purpose of the Green Support for proposed approach and option 1 is Belt, as defined by the NPPF and sits most comfortably with the overall vision for the Core noted as are comments. Strategy and the general approach to Green Belt in the County. Option 1 forms a logical boundary and provides sufficient protection. Further extension as part of Option 2, would only prove to be barrier to sustainable economic growth and delivering housing.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 61

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 39: Is the proposed approach to the outer Morpeth Green Belt boundary appropriate? Do you have a preference for Option 1 or Option 2? Full Name

Comment Response ID Agree with approach? 1226 Yes

Response Option 1 or Option 2? Option 1

Comments

Council's response

Support for proposed approach and option 1 is noted. Also noted are comments in relation to topography and tourism related employment around Burgham Park and Linden Hall. The council acknowledges that there are benefits associated with recreational, and tourism land uses however, these must be assessed against their impact on the openness of the countryside around Morpeth.

410

Yes

Option 1

My client has no strong feelings about the western boundary, but has a strong preference for option 1 of the two alternatives for the northern boundary. Both options are defined by existing roads, and are therefore easy to understand and to justify, however whilst for much of it length the southern line follows a ridge line just north of Longhorsley running towards the A1, the alternative runs does not follow any similar geographical feature. My client's primary objections to option 2 are in terms of the adverse economic impact of the northern line which will include Burgham Park. The application of Green Belt policies as expressed in the NPPF will in the future seriously restrict activities there. It is important that businesses like Burgham Park are in a position to respond to changes in the economic situation, and to new business opportunities. These opportunities would be restricted by its incorporation in the Green Belt. Option 2 would also have implications for any future expansion of Linden Hall currently the area’s premier hotel and an economically important part of the Northumberland tourist offer. In this context it is appropriate to consider the objectives behind the extension which are quoted in the report and were originally identified in the saved Structure Plan policy. These are to: "Preserve the special setting and character of Morpeth; Prevent Morpeth merging with neighbouring settlements; Assist regeneration of main settlements and coalfield villages in South East Northumberland beyond the Green Belt; and― “Safeguard the countryside from encroachment."•Objective 1 to "Preserve the special setting and character of Morpeth;―The area to the north of Burgham Park is a valley and no part of the setting of Morpeth is visible from or affected by this area. There is no need for the extension in this context. Objective 2 to “Prevent Morpeth merging with neighbouring settlements;― Again the option 1 boundary is well north of Morpeth, this objective is like the previous one more relevant to discussions on the inner boundary of the Green Belt. Objective 3 to “Assist regeneration of main settlements and coalfield villages in South East Northumberland beyond the Green Belt.―Burgham Park is very close to a Regeneration Area and its expansion will provide employment to those living within that area. The business already employs staff from within this area and the type of employment to be provided together with in-house training is particularly valuable for the former coalfield villages. The transport plan for the new development envisages the use of minibuses to transport staff to and from Burgham which further enhances the value of the employment the expansion of facilities. Objective 4 to “Safeguard the countryside from encroachment.―Burgham Park has over recent years

613

Yes

Option 1

5459

Yes

Option 1

Mrs Alma Knott

6665

Yes

Option 1

Mr John Secker

4753

No

Option 2

Alan Todd

3966

No

Option 2

Support for proposed approach and option 1 noted. Support for proposed approach and option 1 noted. Support for proposed approach and option 1 noted. Support for proposed approach and option 1 noted. Northern Boundary Option 2 should be extended Eastwards to include area centred on Eshott Rejection of proposed approach is noted as is already identified as an area of high landscape value in the Castle Morpeth Local support for option 2. The suggestion that the Development Plan Green Belt could extend further east to include an area centred on Eshott would not be in accordance with the Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan Saved Policy S5, which established the general extent of the Green Belt extension. I prefer option 2 but feel it could go further north (as far as the river Coquet?), and further Rejection of proposed approach is noted as is west, as far as Todburn. support for option 2. The suggestion that the Green Belt could be extended to the R Coquet and as far west as Todburn would not be in accordance with the Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan Saved Policy S5, which established the general extent of the Green Belt extension.

Mr William Kiely

Mr Robert Barnes

Company / Agent Name (if Organisation (if applicable) applicable) Burgham Park Golf and Mr Tony Woodcock Leisure Ltd.

Agent Details (if applicable)

Dransfield Properties Ltd Mr Robert Barnes

Planning Prospects Ltd

Mr Tapster Mrs Lisa Hamlin

Felton Parish Council

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 62

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 39: Is the proposed approach to the outer Morpeth Green Belt boundary appropriate? Do you have a preference for Option 1 or Option 2? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Response Option 1 or Option 2? Option 2

Comments

Council's response

Mrs Sanger

Comment Response ID Agree with approach? 7819 No

I favour the greater area covered by Option 2, including Linden Hall, Longwitton, Middleton and Bolam Lake within the designation, as this will give added discouragement to any development leapfrogging the new Green Belt. I am concerned that the eastern boundary, incorporating the existing islands of Green Belt, is a little narrow in places and may not be adequate to keep settlements from merging.

Miss Eloise Quayle

8190

No

Option 2

I favour the greater area covered by Option 2, including Linden Hall, Longwitton, Middleton and Bolam Lake within the designation, as this will give added discouragement to any development leapfrogging the new Green Belt. I am concerned that the eastern boundary, incorporating the existing islands of Green Belt, is a little narrow in places and may not be adequate to keep settlements from merging.

Rejection of proposed approach is noted as is support for option 2. With regard to the eastern boundary the council considers the existing 'islands of Green Belt' within the former Wansbeck District were created and tested through the Local Plan process sufficiently recently for there to be no evidence of a need for change. Rejection of proposed approach is noted as is support for option 2. With regard to the eastern boundary the council considers the existing 'islands of Green Belt' within the former Wansbeck District were created and tested through the Local Plan process sufficiently recently for there to be no evidence of a need for change. General support for option 2 noted. The suggestion that the Green Belt could go east to include an area centred on Eshott would not be in accordance with the Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan Saved Policy S5, which established the general extent of the Green Belt extension. Support for proposed approach and option 2 noted. With regard to the eastern boundary the council considers the existing 'islands of Green Belt' within the former Wansbeck District were created and tested through the Local Plan process sufficiently recently for there to be no evidence of a need for change. Support for proposed approach and option 2 noted. With regard to the eastern boundary the council considers the existing 'islands of Green Belt' within the former Wansbeck District were created and tested through the Local Plan process sufficiently recently for there to be no evidence of a need for change. Support for proposed approach and option 2 noted. Support for proposed approach and option 2 noted.

Mrs Lisa Hamlin

Thirston Parish Council

6122

Yes

Option 2

However this area should be extended eastwards to include the area around Eshott already listed as an area of Special Landscape Value in Castle Morpeth Local Plan

Dr Nic Best

CPRE Northumberland

5393

Yes

Option 2

CPRE favours Option 2, including Linden Hall, Longwitton, Middleton and Bolam Lake within the designation as this will give added discouragement to development ‘leapfrogging’ the new Green Belt. We are concerned that the eastern boundary, incorporating the existing islands of Green Belt, is a little narrow in places and may not be adequate to keep settlements from merging

Mrs Linda Sher

11292

Yes

Option 2

ARM favours the greater area covered by Option 2, including Linden Hall, Longwitton, Middleton and Bolam Lake within the designation, as this will give added discouragement to any development leapfrogging the new Green Belt. We are concerned that the eastern boundary, incorporating the existing islands of Green Belt, is a little narrow in places and may not be adequate to keep settlements from merging.

Mr Michael Stewart

30

Yes

Option 2

It ensures that the charm and beauty of the surrounding areas are maintained.

Mr Iain Hay

447

Yes

Option 2

As much of this area should be preserved as possible, any development should take place in some of the many deprived areas nearby which need to be concentrated on so the effects are not diluted. MTC favours Option 2, including Linden Hall, Longwitton, Middleton and Bolam Lake within Support for proposed approach and option 2 the Green Belt. noted. Support for proposed approach and option 2 noted. It is preferable. Support for proposed approach and option 2 noted. We prefer OPTION 2 which would include Linden Hall, Longwitton, Middleton and Bolam lake Support for proposed approach and option 2 within the Green Belt. noted. The greater the better; we therefore prefer option 2. Support for proposed approach and option 2 noted. To preserve the character of the countryside around Linden Hall. Support for proposed approach and option 2 noted.

Miss G Turner

Morpeth Town Council

1210

Yes

Option 2

Mr Philip Ham

Ponteland Civic Society

1491

Yes

Option 2

1879

Yes

Option 2

2471

Yes

Option 2

Mrs M Cowan

2961

Yes

Option 2

Mrs Ann Edwards

3038

Yes

Option 2

Mrs Joan Tebbutt Mrs Angela Parr

Hepscott Parish Council

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 63

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 39: Is the proposed approach to the outer Morpeth Green Belt boundary appropriate? Do you have a preference for Option 1 or Option 2? Full Name

Mrs Ruth Scott

Comment Response ID Agree with approach? 3600 Yes

Response Option 1 or Option 2? Option 2

Mrs Ann Rutter

4380

Yes

Option 2

4934

Yes

Option 2

Mr Alan Etchells

5150

Yes

Option 2

Dr. John Paul O'Neill

5868

Yes

Option 2

Mr Brian Prickett

6337

Yes

Option 2

Mr Neil Fraser

6614

Yes

Option 2

Dr A. Oliver Staines

6668

Yes

Option 2

The Examination in Public held in March 2004 considered the extent of the Green Belt boundary. Arising from that, Recommendation 2.2 states "We recommend that Policy S4 is modified by replacing the words “south of Longhorsley and road C117,......―with the text, “north of Longhorsley...". Under para 2.14, the Inspector comments that existing policies do not guarantee the permanent openness of the land around the village in the same way that a Green Belt would. Para 2.15 states "The Conservation Area only extends to a few streets in the centre of the village and is of only limited value as a designation that could prevent the outward spread of the village. ..... There is no question in the Panel’s minds that Longhorsley should be included within the Green Belt."The Panel reconfirmed the pressure for increased housing development in Longhorsley, and their recommendation addressed that. It would be perverse if the village settlement did not receive the protection afforded by Green Belt. Northern boundary option 2 is preferable.

Mr & Mrs Malcolm & Daphne Morrison Mr Keith MurrayHetherington Mrs Barbara Martin

6925

Yes

Option 2

Option 2 preferred.

6992

Yes

Option 2

7179

Yes

Option 2

Mrs K S Foreman

7222

Yes

Option 2

Mrs Jan Chisholm

7551

Yes

Option 2

Mr Charlie Singh

7712

Yes

Option 2

Iain Elliott

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Longhorsley Parish Council

Bavington Parish Council Morpeth & District Civic Society

Schedule of comments and responses

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comments

Council's response

With regard to Green Belt proposals around the village of Longhorsley, we would favour Support for proposed approach and option 2 Option 2. The reason we favour this option is that Longhorsley is a well defined historic noted. settlement. It is obvious from even a cursory glance that any proposed development to the north of the village, in particular, would extrude in a most awkward and unsightly manner from the existing boundary line. Any such development would also severely compromise the existing pleasant aspect of Longhorsley when approached from the north.This point of view would also seem to be in keeping with the current Castle Morpeth Local Plan, in particular Policy H16, Housing in Open Countryside. The greater the extent the better; we therefore prefer Option 2. Support for proposed approach and option 2 noted. Option 1 places the boundary very close to the north side of the village, so is of little benefit. Support for proposed approach and option 2 Option 2 is strongly preferred, as this retains the setting of Longhorsley in an open and very noted as are comments in relation to Longhorsley. rural setting. The Option 2 north boundary is a much more natural line, given the topography of the area (it is largely on a ridge which acts as a visual delimiter). In addition, this would ensure that the two significant enterprises in the option area (Linden Hall Hotel and Burgham Park) retain the attractive setting in which they are located. As existing developments, it would be hoped that reasonable expansion of these sites might be accommodated.

The greater the extent the better; therefore we therefore prefer Option 2.

Support for proposed approach and option 2 noted. Support for proposed approach and option 2 noted. Support for proposed approach and option 2 noted. Support for proposed approach and option 2 noted. Support for proposed approach and option 2 noted as are comments in relation to Longhorsley.

Support for proposed approach and option 2 noted. We support option 2. Support for proposed approach and option 2 noted. We prefer OPTION 2 which would include Linden Hall, Longwitton, Middleton and Bolam Support for proposed approach and option 2 Lake within the Green Belt. noted. Yes the proposed approach to the outer Morpeth Green Belt boundary is appropriate. I prefer Support for proposed approach and option 2 option 2. noted. Support for proposed approach and option 2 noted. With regard to Green Belt proposals around the village of Longhorsley, we would favour Support for proposed approach and option 2 Option 2. The reason we favour this option is that Longhorsley is a well defined historic noted as are comments in relation to Longhorsley. settlement. It is obvious from even a cursory glance that any proposed development to the north of the village, in particular, would extrude in a most awkward and unsightly manner from the existing boundary line. Any such development would also severely compromise the existing pleasant aspect of Longhorsley when approached from the north.This point of view would also seem to be in keeping with the current Castle Morpeth Local Plan, in particular Policy H16, Housing in Open Countryside.

Page 64

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 39: Is the proposed approach to the outer Morpeth Green Belt boundary appropriate? Do you have a preference for Option 1 or Option 2? Full Name

Response Option 1 or Option 2? Option 2

Comments

Council's response

Mr John Carpenter

Comment Response ID Agree with approach? 8093 Yes

Defining Green Belt boundaries to Morpeth (9.7 to 9.13). I agree with the Council’s approach to the outer Morpeth Green Belt boundary. I prefer Option 2, both for the western boundary (better protects Hartburn, Bolam Lake) and the northern boundary (better protects Longhorsley).

Support for proposed approach and option 2 noted as are comments in relation to Longhorsley.

Mr Chris Winks

8633

Yes

Option 2

Mr Frank Harrington

9536

Yes

Option 2

11456

Yes

Option 2

Mrs Susan Etchells

3442

Yes

Option 2

Mrs Annie Wright

8014

Option 2

Mr Stephen Lloyd

8044

Option 2

11014

Option 2

Mr Murray Macrae

11149

Option 2

Ms Wendy Mason

11173

Option 2

Dr Emma O'Neill

11207

Option 2

Support for proposed approach and option 2 noted. Support for proposed approach and option 2 noted. Support for proposed approach and option 2 noted. I prefer the inclusion of the Linden Hall area to the green belt. However I do fell that before the Support for proposed approach and option 2 exact details of the boundary line are finalised perhaps there could be further consultation noted. The council considers that widening and with the villages or businesses affected. For instance, I strongly believe that the A1 needs to improvement of the A1 would not be deemed an be widened and improved, as do many other people living in the area. I wouldn't want the inappropriate development in Green Belt. green belt boundary line to completely cover the A1 and become a valid excuse for rejecting future road improvements, which I also believe are vital if we are to improve the economy of our area. I favour the greater area covered by Option 2, including Linden Hall, Longwitton, Middleton Support for option 2 noted. With regard to the and Bolam Lake within the designation, as this will give added discouragement to any eastern boundary the council considers the development leapfrogging the new Green Belt. I am concerned that the eastern boundary, existing 'islands of Green Belt' within the former incorporating the existing islands of Green Belt, is a little narrow in places and may not be Wansbeck District were created and tested adequate to keep settlements from merging. through the Local Plan process sufficiently recently for there to be no evidence of a need for change. I favour the greater area covered by Option 2, including Linden Hall, Longwitton, Middleton Support for option 2 noted. With regard to the and Bolam Lake within the designation, as this will give added discouragement to any eastern boundary the council considers the development leapfrogging the new Green Belt. I am concerned that the eastern boundary, existing 'islands of Green Belt' within the former incorporating the existing islands of Green Belt, is a little narrow in places and may not be Wansbeck District were created and tested adequate to keep settlements from merging. through the Local Plan process sufficiently recently for there to be no evidence of a need for change. ARM favours the greater area covered by Option 2, including Linden Hall, Longwitton, Support for option 2 noted. With regard to the Middleton and Bolam Lake within the designation, as this will give added discouragement to eastern boundary the council considers the any development leapfrogging the new Green Belt. We are concerned that the eastern existing 'islands of Green Belt' within the former boundary, incorporating the existing islands of Green Belt, is a little narrow in places and may Wansbeck District were created and tested not be adequate to keep settlements from merging. through the Local Plan process sufficiently recently for there to be no evidence of a need for change. I favour the greater area covered by Option 2, including Linden Hall, Longwitton, Middleton Support for option 2 noted. With regard to the and Bolam Lake within the designation, as this will discourage any development leapfrogging eastern boundary the council considers the the new Green Belt. I am concerned that the eastern boundary, incorporating the existing existing 'islands of Green Belt' within the former islands of Green Belt, is a little narrow in places and may not be adequate to keep settlements Wansbeck District were created and tested from merging. through the Local Plan process sufficiently recently for there to be no evidence of a need for change. I favour the greater area covered by Option 2, including Linden Hall, Longwitton, Middleton Support for option 2 noted. With regard to the and Bolam Lake within the designation, as this will discourage any development leapfrogging eastern boundary the council considers the the new Green Belt. I am concerned that the eastern boundary, incorporating the existing existing 'islands of Green Belt' within the former islands of Green Belt, is a little narrow in places and may not be adequate to keep settlements Wansbeck District were created and tested from merging. through the Local Plan process sufficiently recently for there to be no evidence of a need for change. I favour the greater area covered by Option 2, including Linden Hall, Longwitton, Middleton Support for option 2 noted. With regard to the and Bolam Lake within the designation, as this will give added discouragement to any eastern boundary the council considers the development leapfrogging the new Green Belt. I am concerned that the eastern boundary, existing 'islands of Green Belt' within the former incorporating the existing islands of Green Belt, is a little narrow in places and may not be Wansbeck District were created and tested adequate to keep settlements from merging. through the Local Plan process sufficiently recently for there to be no evidence of a need for change.

Mr Adrian Hinchcliffe

Mr Lester Sher

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Bywell Parish Council

Action for Rural Morpeth ARM

Schedule of comments and responses

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Page 65

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 39: Is the proposed approach to the outer Morpeth Green Belt boundary appropriate? Do you have a preference for Option 1 or Option 2? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Mrs Judith Quayle

Comment Response ID Agree with approach? 11231

Response Option 1 or Option 2? Option 2

Mr and Mrs Sill

11245

Option 2

Mrs Trimmings

11259

Option 2

Mrs Jane Cockburn

11282

Option 2

Miss Caroline Daisy Cockburn

11296

Option 2

Miss Louisa Traquair Cockburn

11313

Option 2

Mr Joel Lester Sher

11324

Option 2

Mr Frank William Cockburn

11328

Option 2

Schedule of comments and responses

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comments

Council's response

I favour the greater area covered by Option 2, including Linden Hall, Longwitton, Middleton and Bolam Lake within the designation, as this will give added discouragement to any development leapfrogging the new Green Belt. I am concerned that the eastern boundary, incorporating the existing islands of Green Belt, is a little narrow in places and may not be adequate to keep settlements from merging.

Support for option 2 noted. With regard to the eastern boundary the council considers the existing 'islands of Green Belt' within the former Wansbeck District were created and tested through the Local Plan process sufficiently recently for there to be no evidence of a need for change. I favour the greater area covered by Option 2, including Linden Hall, Longwitton, Middleton Support for option 2 noted. With regard to the and Bolam Lake within the designation, as this will give added discouragement to any eastern boundary the council considers the development leapfrogging the new Green Belt. I am concerned that the eastern boundary, existing 'islands of Green Belt' within the former incorporating the existing islands of Green Belt, is a little narrow in places and may not be Wansbeck District were created and tested adequate to keep settlements from merging. through the Local Plan process sufficiently recently for there to be no evidence of a need for change. I favour the greater area covered by Option 2, including Linden Hall, Longwitton, Middleton Support for option 2 noted. With regard to the and Bolam Lake within the designation, as this will give added discouragement to any eastern boundary the council considers the development leapfrogging the new Green Belt. I am concerned that the eastern boundary, existing 'islands of Green Belt' within the former incorporating the existing islands of Green Belt, is a little narrow in places and may not be Wansbeck District were created and tested adequate to keep settlements from merging. through the Local Plan process sufficiently recently for there to be no evidence of a need for change. I favour the greater area covered by Option 2, including Linden Hall, Longwitton, Middleton Support for option 2 noted. With regard to the and Bolam Lake within the designation, as this will give added discouragement to any eastern boundary the council considers the development leapfrogging the new Green Belt. I am concerned that the eastern boundary, existing 'islands of Green Belt' within the former incorporating the existing islands of Green Belt, is a little narrow in places and may not be Wansbeck District were created and tested adequate to keep settlements from merging. through the Local Plan process sufficiently recently for there to be no evidence of a need for change. I favour the greater area covered by Option 2, including Linden Hall, Longwitton, Middleton Support for option 2 noted. With regard to the and Bolam Lake within the designation, as this will give added discouragement to any eastern boundary the council considers the development leapfrogging the new Green Belt. I am concerned that the eastern boundary, existing 'islands of Green Belt' within the former incorporating the existing islands of Green Belt, is a little narrow in places and may not be Wansbeck District were created and tested adequate to keep settlements from merging. through the Local Plan process sufficiently recently for there to be no evidence of a need for change. I favour the greater area covered by Option 2, including Linden Hall, Longwitton, Middleton Support for option 2 noted. With regard to the and Bolam Lake within the designation, as this will give added discouragement to any eastern boundary the council considers the development leapfrogging the new Green Belt. I am concerned that the eastern boundary, existing 'islands of Green Belt' within the former incorporating the existing islands of Green Belt, is a little narrow in places and may not be Wansbeck District were created and tested adequate to keep settlements from merging. through the Local Plan process sufficiently recently for there to be no evidence of a need for change. ARM favours the greater area covered by Option 2, including Linden Hall, Longwitton, Support for option 2 noted. With regard to the Middleton and Bolam Lake within the designation, as this will give added discouragement to eastern boundary the council considers the any development leapfrogging the new Green Belt. We are concerned that the eastern existing 'islands of Green Belt' within the former boundary, incorporating the existing islands of Green Belt, is a little narrow in places and may Wansbeck District were created and tested not be adequate to keep settlements from merging. through the Local Plan process sufficiently recently for there to be no evidence of a need for change. I favour the greater area covered by Option 2, including Linden Hall, Longwitton, Middleton Support for option 2 noted. With regard to the and Bolam Lake within the designation, as this will give added discouragement to any eastern boundary the council considers the development leapfrogging the new Green Belt. I am concerned that the eastern boundary, existing 'islands of Green Belt' within the former incorporating the existing islands of Green Belt, is a little narrow in places and may not be Wansbeck District were created and tested adequate to keep settlements from merging. through the Local Plan process sufficiently recently for there to be no evidence of a need for change.

Page 66

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 39: Is the proposed approach to the outer Morpeth Green Belt boundary appropriate? Do you have a preference for Option 1 or Option 2? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Response Option 1 or Option 2? Option 2

Comments

Council's response

Mrs Clare Kendall

Comment Response ID Agree with approach? 11367

I favour the greater area covered by Option 2, including Linden Hall, Longwitton, Middleton and Bolam Lake within the designation, as this will give added discouragement to any development leapfrogging the new Green Belt. I am concerned that the eastern boundary, incorporating the existing islands of Green Belt, is a little narrow in places and may not be adequate to keep settlements from merging.

Mrs Mary Murray

11380

Option 2

I favour the greater area covered by Option 2, including Linden Hall, Longwitton, Middleton and Bolam Lake within the designation, as this will give added discouragement to any development leapfrogging the new Green Belt. I am concerned that the eastern boundary, incorporating the existing islands of Green Belt, is a little narrow in places and may not be adequate to keep settlements from merging.

Mr David William Lindley Penn

11404

Option 2

I favour the greater area covered by Option 2, including Linden Hall, Longwitton, Middleton and Bolam Lake within the designation, as this will give added discouragement to any development leapfrogging the new Green Belt. I am concerned that the eastern boundary, incorporating the existing islands of Green Belt, is a little narrow in places and may not be adequate to keep settlements from merging.

Mrs Gay Penn

11417

Option 2

I favour the greater area covered by Option 2, including Linden Hall, Longwitton, Middleton and Bolam Lake within the designation, as this will give added discouragement to any development leapfrogging the new Green Belt. I am concerned that the eastern boundary, incorporating the existing islands of Green Belt, is a little narrow in places and may not be adequate to keep settlements from merging.

Mr David Richardson

11436

Option 2

I favour the greater area covered by Option 2, including Linden Hall, Longwitton, Middleton and Bolam Lake within the designation, as this will give added discouragement to any development leapfrogging the new Green Belt. I am concerned that the eastern boundary, incorporating the existing islands of Green Belt, is a little narrow in places and may not be adequate to keep settlements from merging.

Mr W A Cowan Mr John Harrison Mr Hugh Cheswright Mrs Jean Cheswright Ms Sue Howie

2340 10317 11030 11075 8461

Option 2 Option 2 Option 2 Option 2 Option 2

The greater the extent the better; therefore we therefore prefer Option 2.

Support for option 2 noted. With regard to the eastern boundary the council considers the existing 'islands of Green Belt' within the former Wansbeck District were created and tested through the Local Plan process sufficiently recently for there to be no evidence of a need for change. Support for option 2 noted. With regard to the eastern boundary the council considers the existing 'islands of Green Belt' within the former Wansbeck District were created and tested through the Local Plan process sufficiently recently for there to be no evidence of a need for change. Support for option 2 noted. With regard to the eastern boundary the council considers the existing 'islands of Green Belt' within the former Wansbeck District were created and tested through the Local Plan process sufficiently recently for there to be no evidence of a need for change. Support for option 2 noted. With regard to the eastern boundary the council considers the existing 'islands of Green Belt' within the former Wansbeck District were created and tested through the Local Plan process sufficiently recently for there to be no evidence of a need for change. Support for option 2 noted. With regard to the eastern boundary the council considers the existing 'islands of Green Belt' within the former Wansbeck District were created and tested through the Local Plan process sufficiently recently for there to be no evidence of a need for change. Support for option 2 noted. Support for option 2 noted. Support for option 2 noted. Support for option 2 noted. Support for option 2 noted.

Northumberland and Newcastle Society

Schedule of comments and responses

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

The greater the extant the better; we therefore prefer Option 2 The greater the extent the better; we therefore prefer Option 2 We suggest option 2 (which covers a larger area) is preferable.

Page 67

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 39: Is the proposed approach to the outer Morpeth Green Belt boundary appropriate? Do you have a preference for Option 1 or Option 2? Full Name

Mr Chris Haggon

Strachan

Company / Organisation (if applicable) TNEI Services Ltd

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Clifton Residents Association

Mr Alan Varley Mrs Lisa Hamlin

Acklington Parish Council

Mr Chris Dowson Mr B George

Mr Simon Beeby

Strutt & Parker LLP

Mrs Zaina Riddle Mr David Feeney

Mitford Parish Council

Mr M. Moore

Mr Richard Garland

George F White

Mrs Susan Cansdale

Comment Response ID Agree with approach? 7969 No

Response Option 1 or Option 2?

4106

Yes

no pref

6758 5959

Yes Yes

4580

No

neither

8460

No

neither

8943

No

neither

9348

No

neither

10974

No

neither

4938

No

neither

Mr R. Jeffrey

Mr Richard Garland

George F White

10243

No

neither

Messrs Michie

Mr Richard Garland

George F White

10352

No

neither

Mr Brian Cazaly

Mr Richard Garland

George F White

10576

No

neither

Messrs G and D Brown

Mr Richard Garland

George F White

10906

No

neither

Schedule of comments and responses

Comments

Council's response

Up-to-date detailed Green Belt Review required. It is not made clear in this section or Figure 9.2 as to the evidence-base for boundary options 1 & 2.

Rejection of the proposed approach is noted. The Council's view is that the Green Belt extension around Morpeth was established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5. Through the Core Strategy the council is now going through the process of defining boundaries in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 85. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

We have no preference in Clifton.

Support for proposed approach noted.

The proposal will protect the area to the north from the developers.

Support for proposed approach noted. Support for proposed approach noted.

I generally do not feel that there is any need to make changes to the greenbelt in Northumberland Neither option is preferable to the option of no Green Belt extension. Both appear to be entirely arbitrary and extend well beyond any meaningful requirement to prevent urban sprawl, which must be the primary requirement of any Green Belt proposals. No need for an extension

Rejection of proposed approach and both boundary options is noted. Rejection of proposed approach and both boundary options is noted.

Rejection of proposed approach and both boundary options is noted. MPC does not support either option. Rejection of proposed approach and both boundary options is noted. As stated in response to Q38 (above) our client does not see a need for the extension of the Rejection of proposed approach and both Green Belt and neither Option 1 nor Option 2 is appropriate. boundary options is noted. I do not have a preference for either because I do not feel the Green Belt needs to be Rejection of proposed approach and both extended boundary options is noted. As stated in response to Q38 (above) our client does not see a need for the extension of the Rejection of proposed approach and both Green Belt and neither Option 1 or Option 2 is appropriate. boundary options is noted. As stated in response to Q38 (above) our client does not see a need for the extension of the Rejection of proposed approach and both Green Belt and neither Option 1 or Option 2 is appropriate. boundary options is noted. As stated in response to Q38 (above) our client does not see a need for the extension of the Rejection of proposed approach and both Green Belt and neither Option 1 nor Option 2 is appropriate. boundary options is noted. As stated in response to Q38 (above) our client does not see a need for the extension of the Rejection of proposed approach and both Green Belt and neither Option 1 nor Option 2 is appropriate. Additionally, insufficient evidence boundary options is noted. is given in the Cores Strategy over the proposed boundaries to offer a detailed comment.

Page 68

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 39: Is the proposed approach to the outer Morpeth Green Belt boundary appropriate? Do you have a preference for Option 1 or Option 2? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Mr John Dowson

Sir or Madam

Northern Farmers & Landowners Group

Messrs Laidler

Schedule of comments and responses

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID Agree with approach? 7089 No

Response Option 1 or Option 2? neither

Comments

Council's response

Mr John Coxon

Emery Planning Partnership

The main settlements distances to the north east of Morpeth are listed below: · 6.5m from Morpeth to Hartburn · 6.3m from Morpeth to Longhorsley · 6.5m from Morpeth to Netherwitton Expanding the Green Belt as far as Longorsley seems excessive and does not meet the Green Belt test of exceptional circumstances. It would be unlikely to realistically achieve any Green Belt objectives. As identified above, the SHMA indicates significant housing pressures and housing need in the rural areas, far in excess of the need identified at the time of the Structure Plan. We would strongly question the need to include Longhorsley, Netherwitton, Hatburn and Belsay within the Green Belt boundary. That may prevent housing needs in those settlements being met, if the boundaries are drawn unduly tightly. A much smaller band of Green Belt around Morpeth would be sufficient to achieve the original aims of the Green Belt extension as set out in the Structure Plan.

AECC Consulting

8790

No

neither

This appears to be a complete mis-use of the Green Belt concept. In virtually any other county, the likes of Netherwitton and Hartburn would be viewed as deep rural. The Morpeth Green Belt, if really required, should have its western boundary as the A1.

Rejection of proposed approach and both boundary options is noted. Also noted are comments in relation to Longhorsley. The Council's view is that the Green Belt extension around Morpeth was established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5. Through the Core Strategy the council is now going through the process of defining boundaries in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 85. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage. Rejection of proposed approach and both boundary options is noted. Also noted are comments in relation to Netherwitton and Hartburn. The Council's view is that the Green Belt extension around Morpeth was established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5. Through the Core Strategy the council is now going through the process of defining boundaries in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 85. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Mr Angus CollingwoodCameron

Mr Richard Garland

George F White

9852

No

neither

As stated in response to Q38 (above) our client does not see a need for the extension of the Rejection of proposed approach and both Green Belt and neither Option 1 or Option 2 is appropriate. Notwithstanding this, were a boundary options is noted. Also noted are Green Belt extension to be proposed, sufficient land needs to be left out of the Green Belt to comments in relation to Pegswood. permit housing within Pegswood and for appropriate growth of the village. There is no danger of any unchecked sprawl or coalescence with settlements to the east or the north of the village; indeed an element of Green Belt already exists to the east of the settlement. Even if the Green Belt were to be extended, appropriate allowance for extension of the settlement must be incorporated within the boundaries. We have some major concerns over the proposed boundaries of the Green Belt and would invite discussions with the Council over specific boundaries should they intend proposing the Green Belt Extension beyond the Issues and Options Stage.

Page 69

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 39: Is the proposed approach to the outer Morpeth Green Belt boundary appropriate? Do you have a preference for Option 1 or Option 2? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Mr Keith Butler

Mr Michael Briggs

EnergieKontor UK Ltd

Mrs J Graham Ms Karen Carins Ms Karen Carins

Mr Richard Garland Stannington Station Residents Association Stannington Parish Council

Mr JRR Prescott Mr Neil Wilson

Mrs Lucinda FlemingJones Mr and Mrs Jim and Susan Norris Mr Robert Ramsay Mrs Patricia Wilson Mrs Kathleen Mavin

Glendale Gateway Trust & Wooler Parish Council

Slaley Parish Council Ponteland Town Council

Schedule of comments and responses

George F White

Comment Response ID Agree with approach? 3254 No

Response Option 1 or Option 2? neither

6725

No

neither

9898

No

neither

Comments

Council's response

Both proposed options are too severe in encompassing areas which are much too large to meet the aims of Green Belt Policy. These proposals would force development away from sustainable locations and simply increase travel distances for all concerned. This is counterproductive and contrary to principles of sustainability.

4163

neither

Rejection of proposed approach and both boundary options is noted. The council's view is that increasing the width of the Green Belt will protect Morpeth's rural hinterland from inappropriate development and encourage development in sustainable locations around former coal mining villages in the south east of the county. We do not agree that the proposed approach to the outer Morpeth Green Belt boundary is Rejection of proposed approach and both appropriate in the absence of the 'exceptional circumstances' and analysis required by para boundary options is noted. The Council's view is 82 of the NPPF to justify an extension to the existing Green Belt. that the Green Belt extension around Morpeth was established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5. Through the Core Strategy the council is now going through the process of defining boundaries in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 85. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage. As stated in response to Q38 (above) our client does not see that a need for the extension of Rejection of the proposed approach is noted. the Green Belt in neither Option 1 nor Option 2 is appropriate. Neither. Rejection of both boundary options is noted.

6813

neither

Neither.

Rejection of both boundary options is noted.

745

Option 2

The northern green belt boundary outlined in option 2 is far preferable to that of option 1.

518

no pref

Not relevant to us.

Support for option 2 in relation to the northern boundary noted. No response required.

3050

no pref

No preference

No response required.

6998

no pref

No preference

No response required.

7072 7873 9732

no pref no pref no pref

No comment Not in a position to comment constructively on this. No comment - defer to Morpeth.

No response required. No response required. No response required.

Page 70

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Consultation point: Figure 9.3 - Morpeth's environmental, landscape and infrastructure factors Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Mr Alan Varley

Schedule of comments and responses

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Comments ID

Council's response

6756 I strongly agree with the emphasis and importance which national government gives to the Green Belt.

Page 71

No response required.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 40: Is the proposed approach to defining the inner Morpeth Green Belt boundary appropriate? Full Name

Mr Adrian Hinchcliffe

Mr Lester Sher

Company / Organisation (if applicable) Bywell Parish Council

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response Comments ID 11457 Yes

Action for Rural Morpeth ARM

11015 Yes

Mrs Linda Sher

11293 Yes

Mr Joel Lester Sher

11326 Yes

Messrs Laidler

Schedule of comments and responses

Mr Richard Garland

George F White

9853 No

Council's response

Agreed, but this is really a matter for the people of Morpeth.

Support for approach to the inner Green Belt boundary is noted. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage. ARM broadly supports the principles of NCC's approach to setting inner Green Belt boundary. General support for the Council's proposed However we are concerned that the approach is framed in terms of seeking a trade-off or approach to the inner Green Belt boundary balance implying a win-lose situation. The local 'environmental capacity' is such that loss of around Morpeth is noted. Environmental issues key open spaces could lead to the total non-functioning of wildlife corridors. There is no scope will be taken into consideration in defining the for incremental loss of environmental benefit. boundary and will also be addressed by Core Strategy environmental and green infrastructure policies.

ARM broadly supports the principles of NCC's approach to setting inner Green Belt boundary. However we are concerned that the approach is framed in terms of seeking a trade-off or balance implying a win-lose situation. The local 'environmental capacity' is such that loss of key open spaces could lead to the total non-functioning of wildlife corridors. There is no scope for incremental loss of environmental benefit.

General support for the Council's proposed approach to the inner Green Belt boundary around Morpeth is noted. Environmental issues will be taken into consideration in defining the boundary and will also be addressed by Core Strategy environmental and green infrastructure policies. ARM broadly supports the principles of NCC's approach to setting inner Green Belt boundary. General support for the Council's proposed However we are concerned that the approach is framed in terms of seeking a trade-off or approach to the inner Green Belt boundary balance implying a win-lose situation. The local ‘environmental capacity' is such that loss of around Morpeth is noted. Environmental issues key open spaces could lead to the total non-functioning of wildlife corridors. There is no scope will be taken into consideration in defining the for incremental loss of environmental benefit. boundary and will also be addressed by Core Strategy environmental and green infrastructure policies. As stated in our answers to Q38 and Q39 our client strongly disagrees with the principle of a Green Belt extension. Furthermore and notwithstanding our objection in principle it is impossible to comment on the proposed inner boundary until the proposals have been transposed onto a plan so that the precise boundaries are clear.

Page 72

The view that the Green Belt should not be extended around Morpeth is noted. The council's view is that the extension to the Green Belt around Morpeth has been established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5 and the council is now going through the process of defining boundaries as described in NPPF paragraph 85. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support definition of an inner Green Belt boundary around Morpeth and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 40: Is the proposed approach to defining the inner Morpeth Green Belt boundary appropriate? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Messrs Michie

Dr Nic Best

CPRE Northumberland

Mr John Carpenter

Mr David Patterson

Schedule of comments and responses

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Mr Richard Garland

George F White

Comment Response Comments ID 10356 No

5397 Yes

8099

434 No

Council's response

As stated in our answers to Q38 and Q39 our client strongly disagrees with the principle of a Green Belt extension. Furthermore and notwithstanding our objection in principle it is impossible to comment on the proposed inner boundary until the proposals have been transposed onto a plan so that the precise boundaries are clear. Without prejudice to the above position, should the LPA disagree on the above point and proceed towards a Green Belt extension, then we strongly argue that the inner boundary to the north of Morpeth should not be located any further south than the proposed Morpeth bypass route as per the plan. Any further incursion of the green belt in towards Morpeth will result in adverse effects on the settlement over the plan period and beyond. We would welcome further, detailed discussions on this matter with the Council prior to issuing the next round of planning policy for consultation.

The view that the Green Belt should not be extended around Morpeth is noted. The council's view is that the extension to the Green Belt around Morpeth has been established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5 and the council is now going through the process of defining boundaries as described in NPPF paragraph 85. Evidence of future development needs will be required to support definition of the inner boundary around Morpeth and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Therefor willthe beCouncil's opportunities to discuss CPRE broadly support the principles of NCC's approach to setting inner Green Belt boundary. Document. General support proposed However we are concerned that the approach is framed in terms of seeking a trade-off or approach to the inner Green Belt boundary balance implying a win-lose situation. The local ‘environmental capacity' is such that loss of around Morpeth is noted. Environmental issues key open spaces could lead to the total non-functioning of wildlife corridors. There is no scope will be taken into consideration in defining the for incremental loss of environmental benefit. boundary and will also be addressed by Core Strategy environmental and green infrastructure policies. Defining Green Belt boundaries to Morpeth (9.7 to 9.13). For the inner boundary, I approve of Support for the approach to defining the inner the definitions with the exception of the southern boundary. This should, in common with the boundaries around Morpeth is noted as is the western and eastern boundaries, be drawn tightly to the existing settlement edge, to preserve view that the southern inner boundary should be rural character and maintain separation from Clifton and Hepscott. Should the South drawn tightly to the existing settlement boundary. Loansdean development be approved on appeal, the boundary should be tightly drawn around the existing settlement edge and that development; no further development should be permitted towards Clifton or Hepscott.

Extension beyond the existing southern boundary to the town would significantly impact on the traffic flow problems that already exist. Development to the north while regretable would at least provide housing near existing facilities and with appropriate links to the A1 could even reduce the burden of traffic travelling through the town at present.

Page 73

Support for the approach to defining the inner boundaries around Morpeth is noted as is the view that the southern inner boundary should be drawn tightly to the existing settlement boundary.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 40: Is the proposed approach to defining the inner Morpeth Green Belt boundary appropriate? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response Comments ID

Council's response

Mrs Jane Nolan

Miss Jane Wallis

10955 No

Fairhurst do not consider that the proposed approach to defining the inner Morpeth Green Belt boundary is appropriate Fairhurst wish to see a new local plan coming forward for Northumberland as soon as possible, however it is crucial that the plan tackles the current planning issues for the County and is based on sound evidence. Paragraph 79 of the NPPF states that one of the key characteristics of Green Belt is its permanence and as such, boundaries need to take into account potential development for the duration of the plan period and beyond. The growth of North Morpeth is critical to the delivery of the Core Strategy. In light of this, appropriate boundaries need to be drawn based on robust evidence to ensure that the expansion of Morpeth over the plan 20 years can be fully and strategically planned. Otherwise, the Core Strategy can be seen to have a dodged a main issue and may not be considered sound by the Inspector. The growth of Morpeth is crucial and a current matter for the future of the County, and the definition of the inner Green Belt boundary should take into account the proposed North Morpeth Bypass which brings significant opportunities for sustainable and deliverable development to the north and south of this major piece of infrastructure. It is critical that the development of the proposed Bypass is built into a robust strategy which allows for growth. The uncertainty surrounding the boundaries of the inner Morpeth Green Belt in the Core Strategy does not provide a clear and sound basis for investment decisions. At present, the Core Strategy opens the door to piecemeal development in the general extent of the Green Belt until cumulative development justifies redrafting of the boundaries as part of the next local plan process. This approach cannot be considered sound strategic planning and threatens to delay the adoption of the whole Core Strategy which effects development throughout the County. Fairhurst also request that the Green Belt boundaries are drafted during this development plan process so that regeneration efforts are directed towards the rural coalfields of the County.

Comments on the need for permanence and certainty regarding the Green Belt around Morpeth in relation to future development are noted. The council's view is that the extension to the Green Belt around Morpeth has been established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5 and the council is now going through the process of defining boundaries as described in NPPF paragraph 85. Evidence of future development needs will be required to support definition of the inner Green Belt boundary around Morpeth and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Mr Keith Redpath

Miss Jane Wallis

8372 No

Fairhurst do not consider that the proposed approach to defining the inner Morpeth Green Belt boundary is appropriate. Fairhurst wish to see a new local plan coming forward for Northumberland as soon as possible, however it is crucial that the plan tackles the current planning issues for the County and is based on sound evidence. Paragraph 79 of the NPPF states that one of the key characteristics of Green Belt is its permanence and as such, boundaries need to take into account potential development for the duration of the plan period and beyond. The growth of North Morpeth is critical to the delivery of the Core Strategy. In light of this, appropriate boundaries need to be drawn based on robust evidence to ensure that the expansion of Morpeth over the plan 20 years can be fully and strategically planned. Otherwise, the Core Strategy can be seen to have a dodged a main issue and may not be considered sound by the Inspector. The growth of Morpeth is crucial and a current matter for the future of the County, and the definition of the inner Green Belt boundary should take into account the proposed North Morpeth Bypass which brings significant opportunities for sustainable and deliverable development to the north and south of this major piece of infrastructure. It is critical that the development of the proposed Bypass is built into a robust strategy which allows for growth. The uncertainty surrounding the boundaries of the inner Morpeth Green Belt in the Core Strategy does not provide a clear and sound basis for investment decisions. At present, the Core Strategy opens the door to piecemeal development in the general extent of the Green Belt until cumulative development justifies redrafting of the boundaries as part of the next local plan process. This approach cannot be considered sound strategic planning and threatens to delay the adoption of the whole Core Strategy which effects development throughout the County. Fairhurst also request that the Green Belt boundaries are drafted during this developmentplan process so that regeneration efforts are directed towards the rural coalfields of the County.

Comments on the need for permanence and certainty regarding the Green Belt around Morpeth in relation to future development are noted. The council's view is that the extension to the Green Belt around Morpeth has been established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5 and the council is now going through the process of defining boundaries as described in NPPF paragraph 85. Evidence of future development needs will be required to support definition of the inner Green Belt boundary around Morpeth and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 74

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 40: Is the proposed approach to defining the inner Morpeth Green Belt boundary appropriate? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response Comments ID

Council's response

Mr Mark Bridgeman

Miss Jane Wallis

11036 No

Fairhurst do not consider that the proposed approach to defining the inner Morpeth Green Belt boundary is appropriate. Fairhurst wish to see a new local plan coming forward for Northumberland as soon as possible, however it is crucial that the plan tackles the current planning issues for the County and is based on sound evidence. Paragraph 79 of the NPPF states that one of the key characteristics of Green Belt is its permanence and as such, boundaries need to take into account potential development for the duration of the plan period and beyond. The growth of North Morpeth is critical to the delivery of the Core Strategy. In light of this, appropriate boundaries need to be drawn based on robust evidence to ensure that the expansion of Morpeth over the plan 20 years can be fully and strategically planned. Otherwise, the Core Strategy can be seen to have a dodged a main issue and may not be considered sound by the Inspector. The growth of Morpeth is crucial and a current matter for the future of the County, and the definition of the inner Green Belt boundary should take into account the proposed North Morpeth Bypass which brings significant opportunities for sustainable and deliverable development to the north and south of this major piece of infrastructure. It is critical that the development of the proposed Bypass is built into a robust strategy which allows for growth. The uncertainty surrounding the boundaries of the inner Morpeth Green Belt in the Core Strategy does not provide a clear and sound basis for investment decisions. At present, the Core Strategy opens the door to piecemeal development in the general extent of the Green Belt until cumulative development justifies redrafting of the boundaries as part of the next local plan process. This approach cannot be considered sound strategic planning and threatens to delay the adoption of the whole Core Strategy which effects development throughout the County. Fairhurst also request that the Green Belt boundaries are drafted during this development plan process so that regeneration efforts are directed towards the rural coalfields of the County.

Comments on the need for permanence and certainty regarding the Green Belt around Morpeth in relation to future development are noted. The council's view is that the extension to the Green Belt around Morpeth has been established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5 and the council is now going through the process of defining boundaries as described in NPPF paragraph 85. Evidence of future development needs will be required to support definition of the inner Green Belt boundary around Morpeth and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Mr Colin Matheson

Miss Jane Wallis

11288 No

Fairhurst do not consider that the proposed approach to defining the inner Morpeth Green Belt boundary is appropriate. Fairhurst wish to see a new local plan coming forward for Northumberland as soon as possible, however it is crucial that the plan tackles the current planning issues for the County and is based on sound evidence. 2.95 Paragraph 79 of the NPPF states that one of the key characteristics of Green Belt is its permanence and as such, boundaries need to take into account potential development for the duration of the plan period and beyond. The growth of North Morpeth is critical to the delivery of the Core Strategy. In light of this, appropriate boundaries need to be drawn based on robust evidence to ensure that the expansion of Morpeth over the plan 20 years can be fully and strategically planned. Otherwise, the Core Strategy can be seen to have a dodged a main issue and may not be considered sound by the Inspector. The growth of Morpeth is crucial and a current matter for the future of the County, and the definition of the inner Green Belt boundary should take into account the proposed North Morpeth Bypass which brings significant opportunities for sustainable and deliverable development to the north and south of this major piece of infrastructure. It is critical that the development of the proposed Bypass is built into a robust strategy which allows for growth. The uncertainty surrounding the boundaries of the inner Morpeth Green Belt in the Core Strategy does not provide a clear and sound basis for investment decisions. At present, the Core Strategy opens the door to piecemeal development in the general extent of the Green Belt until cumulative development justifies redrafting of the boundaries as part of the next local plan process. This approach cannot be considered sound strategic planning and threatens to delay the adoption of the whole Core Strategy which effects development throughout the County. Fairhurst also request that the Green Belt boundaries are drafted during this development plan process so that regeneration efforts are directed towards the rural coalfields of the County.

Comments on the need for permanence and certainty regarding the Green Belt around Morpeth in relation to future development are noted. The council's view is that the extension to the Green Belt around Morpeth has been established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5 and the council is now going through the process of defining boundaries as described in NPPF paragraph 85. Evidence of future development needs will be required to support definition of the inner Green Belt boundary around Morpeth and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 75

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 40: Is the proposed approach to defining the inner Morpeth Green Belt boundary appropriate? Full Name

Mr Neil Milburn

Company / Organisation (if applicable) Barratt North East

Mr Andrew Gorman

Schedule of comments and responses

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Mr Neil Morton

Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners

Comment Response Comments ID 9913

386 Yes

Firstly, it is our firm view that the extent of the inner Green Belt boundary around Morpeth should be predicated by the extent of land required to meet the town's full housing needs to 2030 and beyond and not vice versa. In simple terms, the definition of a new inner Green Belt boundary must not prevent or constrain Morpeth's growth in accordance with its full, objectively assessed housing need being met. Such an approach has recently been endorsed by The Planning Inspectorate (PINS) in relation to the examination in public of Hertsmere Borough Council's draft Core Strategy. PINS identified that the Core Strategy failed to plan to meet objectively assessed housing needs and, as a result, concludes that Hertsmere Council should: “…consider whether it should plan now for a more ambitious but realistic target for housing provision that is informed by an objective assessment of needs and demands. In order to do so, it is likely to be necessary to apply the advice in the Framework about reviewing the Green Belt boundary.―. At paragraph 9.11 of the CSIO it is stated that in defining a inner Green Belt boundary around Morpeth, NCC's general approach is to avoid the town merging to the south east with Hepscott. Whilst we agree with the point generally, this will still be achieved and openness maintained with housing development at our client's sites at Stobhill. Indeed, through housing proposals for the site there is a significant opportunity to create a new, long lasting and strong Green Belt boundaries for Morpeth whilst ensuring its development needs are met. . At paragraph 9.12 of the CSIO a series of principles is set out for defining Morpeth's inner Green Belt boundary, which includes: “Southern boundary to retain to retain the rural character of the rising ground to the south and maintain separation from Clifton and Hepscott.―. No proposed inner urban Green Belt boundary is provided by the CSIO and paragraph 9.13 states that this will be defined by the next version of the CS which we understand will be a Pre-Publication document in ‘Winter 2012/13'. Notwithstanding, with reference to NCC's Key Land Use Impact Study (Part A - Landscape Sensitivity at Settlement Edges) (September 2010) it is apparent that the reference to rising ground to the south relates to land beyond Grindle Hill and Catch Burn rather than Stobhill. Figure 14.1 below is an extract from the report for Morpeth. It identifies that our client's land at Stobhill is not visually sensitive (it is ‘white land'). If a new inner Green Belt boundary is to be drawn at south east Morpeth, it should follow the southern boundary of the Stobhill site which is currently defined by a mature tree line. This would mean that the area of higher landscape sensitivity shown as Orange 4 on Figure 14.1 (see page 33 of the attached Having once been a complete stranger to this area, I came to appreciate the unique character of the county and its historic towns when first stationed at RAF Boulmer in 1983. Having visited most places in this country and resided in not a few during my 16 years service, my wife and I chose to settle in Morpeth and raise our family here. In the 18 years we have resided here, our conviction has grown that rural nature of the county is it's strongest asset and attraction. The best chance of enabling economic viability is, ironically, by preserving this special character so a careful balance has to be struck between development and preservation. The approach from the south is that which most visitors (as opposed to residents in surrounding settlements) use and it is most important in preserving the special character of Morpeth as a The county Market Town, uncontaminated by urban expansion as a satellite of Newcastle. The long-awaited Northern by-pass is imminent and should relieve the traffic congestion through the town centre whilst the development of less conspicuous spaces within the settlement boundary to the north enables expansion for the foreseeable future. This will only work if the South Morpeth green belt is mainatianed in line with the current settlement boundary. (As noted under 9.12 above).

Page 76

Council's response

The view that the extent of the inner Green Belt boundary around Morpeth should be predicted by the extent of land required to meet future development is in accord with the Council's proposed policies. Evidence of future development needs will be required to support definition of the Green Belt boundary and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Support for the approach to defining the inner boundaries around Morpeth is noted as is the view that the southern inner boundary should be drawn tightly to the existing settlement boundary.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 40: Is the proposed approach to defining the inner Morpeth Green Belt boundary appropriate? Full Name

Mrs Angela Parr

Company / Agent Name (if Organisation (if applicable) applicable) Hepscott Parish Council

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response Comments ID

Council's response

2474 Yes

Hepscott Parish Council supports the Council's general approach to avoid Morpeth merging to the South East with Hepscott and to the South with Clifton. We broadly support the principles of the county's approach to setting the inner Green Belt boundary to Morpeth. We consider that the South Morpeth Green Belt inner boundary should be in line with the current settlement boundary of Morpeth. In Hepscott Parish the southern boundary should be tightly drawn along the A196, and for a short length from the roundabout southwards along the A192, along the edge of Stobhill Manor estate and along the Catchburn westwards to the A197. This would be in accordance with previous assessments, which include those made by the Consultants to CMBC and the DoE. The setting and special character of Morpeth must be preserved.

Support for the approach to defining the inner boundaries around Morpeth is noted as are the comments in relation to the southern boundary. The comment about the need for the special setting and character of Morpeth to be preserved is in line with proposed policy.

Mrs L Long

387 No

Support for the approach to defining the inner boundaries around Morpeth is noted as is the view that the southern inner boundary should be drawn tightly to the existing settlement boundary, as defined in the Morpeth Local Plan.

Mr John Graham

303 No

I agree entirely with the aims stated in 9.11 to discourage urban sprawl. However I believe that the approach laid out in 9.12 should be amended to state that the Southern Inner green belt boundary should be drawn tightly to the existing settlement edge, particularly at Loansdean. Morpeth and Clifton have unique characteristics which should be maintained and preserved. No developments such as housing should be built to the south of Morpeth as all the facilities are north of the river (schools, shopping centre, health facilities, library, churches new vetinary facility and just about everything else. Planning for housing to the south would further exacerbate traffic problems at the Telford Bridge. The landscape corridor approach to Morpeth from the south should be preceded by and protected by the green belt, thus preserving a unique drive in to the town. There has already been a residential development in I agree entirely with the aims stated in 9.11 to discourage urban sprawl. However I believe that the approach laid out in 9.12 should be changed to say that the Southern Inner green belt boundary should be drawn tightly to the existing settlement edge, particularly at Loansdean. No housing should be built to the south of Morpeth as all the facilities are North of the river (schools, shopping centre, health facilities, library, churches new vetinary facility and just about everything else. Planning for housing to the south would further exacerbate traffic problems at the Telford Bridge. The landscape corridor approach to Morpeth from the south should be preceded by and protected by the green belt. This is the know view of the vast majority of residents who reside in the south of Morpeth who have been putting forward this view for the last 16 years!! It appears once again, that no one is listening.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 77

Support for the approach to defining the inner boundaries around Morpeth is noted as is the view that the southern inner boundary should be drawn tightly to the existing settlement boundary, as defined in the Morpeth Local Plan.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 40: Is the proposed approach to defining the inner Morpeth Green Belt boundary appropriate? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response Comments ID

Council's response

Mrs Sheena Graham

304 No

I agree entirely with the aims stated in 9.11 to discourage urban sprawl. However I believe that the approach laid out in 9.12 should be changed to say that the Southern Inner green belt boundary should be drawn tightly to the existing settlement edge, particularly at Loansdean. No housing should be built to the south of Morpeth as all the facilities are North of the river (schools, shopping centre, health facilities, library, churches new vetinary facility and just about everything else. Planning for housing to the south would further exacerbate traffic problems at the Telford Bridge. The landscape corridor approach to Morpeth from the south should be preceded by and protected by the green belt. This is the know view of the vast majority of residents who reside in the south of Morpeth who have been putting forward this view for the last 16 years!! It appears once again, that no one is listening.

Support for the approach to defining the inner boundaries around Morpeth is noted as is the view that the southern inner boundary should be drawn tightly to the existing settlement boundary, as defined in the Morpeth Local Plan.

Mr David Holden

290 No

Support for the approach to defining the inner boundaries around Morpeth is noted as is the view that the southern inner boundary should be drawn tightly to the existing settlement boundary, as defined in the Morpeth Local Plan.

Mrs Julie Holden

291 No

I agree entirely with the aims stated in 9.11. I also agree with the approach laid out in 9.12 for the Western, Eastern and Northern boundaries, providing the Northern boundary is drawn so as to allow for the required housing expansions. My opinion is that the Southern inner boundary should also be drawn tightly to the existing settlement edge, particularly at Loansdean. Housing expansion should not be accomodated to the south of Morpeth as the vast majority of facilities are north of the river (high school, middle schools, shopping centre, recycling centre, new Mount health centre, library, most churches, new vetinary facilty,etc). forthe housing the boundary south would lead have to exacerbation of traffic in problems at Mafeking IPlanning agree that GreentoBelt should the aims described 9.11 to discourage urban sprawl. However, in 9.12, my view is that the Southern inner Green Belt boundary should also be tightly drawn to the existing settlement, as is proposed for the Western and Eastern boundaries. The reason is that expansion of housing to the south of the town should not be allowed, as all the major facilities are located to the north of the town, and we should not add to the traffic problems at Mafeking Island and Telford Bridge for motorists accessing the town from the south. I agree that the Northern inner boundary should fit to the bypass route, as described in 9.12

Mr Paul Jackson

389 Yes

I agree with 9.11 but in respect of 9.12 the southern boundary should maintain the current settlement boundary lines as any further expansion to the south would not be sustainable as all of Morpeth's main facilities ie shops, schools and medical establishments are north of the river. Any further expansion in the south would cause increased traffic journeys over the already busy Telford Bridge and wipe out any benefit that may be gained from the Northern Bypass. The Northern boundary should be drawn in line with the bypass and also allow the required expansion of Morpeth in the area that is sustainable to all of Morpeth's facilities. Expansion north will also have the benefit of full access to the A1 without affecting the town centre and Telford Bridge.

Support for the approach to defining the inner boundaries around Morpeth is noted as is the view that the southern inner boundary should be drawn tightly to the existing settlement boundary.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 78

Support for the approach to defining the inner boundaries around Morpeth is noted as is the view that the southern inner boundary should be drawn tightly to the existing settlement boundary, as defined in the Morpeth Local Plan.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 40: Is the proposed approach to defining the inner Morpeth Green Belt boundary appropriate? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response Comments ID

Mr Hugh Graham

428 No

Mr Michael Ashcroft

425 No

Dr Jared Johnson

301 No

Schedule of comments and responses

I agree with the aims in 9.11 (to avoid the town merging to the south with Clifton), and in 9.12 (which I read as ‘to consider carefully and to define Morpeth's Green Belt inner boundary') as both would effect a discouragement of urban sprawl. However I believe the approach in 9.12 should be amended to clearly state that the Southern Inner green belt boundary should be drawn tightly to the existing settlement edge, particularly at Loansdean. The character of the southern approach to Morpeth is attractively rural and well loved by visitors and residents alike. It seems to me perverse to carry out a major housing development at the effective southern entrance to the town when all major facilities are located north of the river (including schools, shops and shopping centre, new health facilities and library, to name but a few). Adding significantly to housing to the south of the town would exacerbate traffic problems at the old Cottage Hospital turning, the Sun Inn turnings, the Mafeking roundabout, and not least, Telford Bridge. When attending the original meeting to discuss the Bellway proposal (in Alnwick) we were made aware that further plans affecting planning and provision in the north of the town will provide additional housing on brown field land and much improved road links. It seemed that funds were available for this, and some councillors undertook to ‘chivvy' this along. Good transport and communication links are vital for a market town. Please ensure that this historic market town is allowed to retain its character and does not become, through poor planning and questionable financial gain, a well known traffic jam, with all the economic downturn that would be likely to follow. I trust appropriate amendment will be made to 9.13 to reflect such views. I agree with the aims of 9.11. I am however convinced that the South Morpeth Green Belt inner boundary should be in line with the existing settlement boundary. There must be no more building on the southern side of the town, as the beautiful access to the town would be permanently ruined. It would be morally wrong to destroy the habitats of flora and fauna in this environment. An increase in the population on the southern side of the river would also lead to additional traffic chaos, particularly at Telford Bridge. Given the plans for the new by-pass it would be logical to build on the northern side of the town, where the vast majority of the town's facilities are located. I agree with the aims stated in 9.11 and also with the proposals made in 9.12 for Western, Eastern and Northern boundaries, provided the latter is drawn so as to allow for the required expansion of housing. I disagree strongly with plans to allow further housing development to the South of Morpeth. The Southern inner boundary should be maintained in line with the current settlement boundary and drawn tightly to the existing settlement edge, particularly at Loansdean. There should be no housing expansion allowed to the South of Morpeth as the vast majority of facilities are located to the North and East of the town - high school, middle schools, town centre shopping areas, industrial estate,the new health centre at The Mount, library, recycling centre, the new veterinary centre, the vast majority of places of worship, Leisure Centre, community halls etc. Extra housing in the South would simply lead to even greater traffic problems which already exist at the Sun Inn, Mafeking Park and Telford Bridge. These have already been greatly exacerbated by the recently-installed, ill-conceived and totally unnecessary system of light-controlled traffic management at the North end of Telford Bridge. Increased traffic flow from the south would greatly worsen an already frustrating and intolerable chaotic situation.

Page 79

Council's response

Support for the approach to defining the inner boundaries around Morpeth is noted as is the view that the southern inner boundary should be drawn tightly to the existing settlement boundary.

Support for the approach to defining the inner boundaries around Morpeth is noted as is the view that the southern inner boundary should be drawn tightly to the existing settlement boundary.

Support for the approach to defining the inner boundaries around Morpeth is noted as is the view that the southern inner boundary should be drawn tightly to the existing settlement boundary.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 40: Is the proposed approach to defining the inner Morpeth Green Belt boundary appropriate? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response Comments ID

Council's response

Mr Ian Wilson

423 Yes

I agree with the aims stated in 9.11 and also with the proposals made in 9.12 for Western, Eastern and Northern boundaries. I disagree strongly with plans to allow further housing development to the South of Morpeth. The Southern inner boundary should be maintained in line with the current settlement boundary and drawn tightly to the existing settlement edge, particularly at Loansdean. There should be no further housing expansion allowed to the South of Morpeth as the vast majority of facilities are located to the North of the town such as the high school, middle schools, town centre shopping areas, including the new supermarket, most pubs and restaurants, the new health centre at The Mount, library, recycling centre, the new veterinary centre, Leisure Centre, community halls etc. Development to the north of the town allowing people easier access to these facilities would seem more logical. Further housing development in the South would simply lead to even greater traffic problems which already exist at the Sun Inn, Mafeking Park and Telford Bridge.

Support for the approach to defining the inner boundaries around Morpeth is noted as is the view that the southern inner boundary should be drawn tightly to the existing settlement boundary.

Mr Gordon Pickard

391 No

I agree with the Council's general approach in section 9.11 to avoid urban sprawl and the merging of neighbouring settlements. However, I strongly disagree with section 9.12. further extension of the town boundary to the south beyond its current boundary would be counter to the longstanding preference of the town's residents and their representatives for further housing development to be directed to the north of the town in recognition that the majority of the shopping, cultural, medical, schools and entertainment facilities are concentrated on the northern side of the river. Such development would be sustainable and would also better protect the character of Morpeth as a historic market town.

Support for the approach to defining the inner boundaries around Morpeth is noted as is the view that the southern inner boundary should be drawn tightly to the existing settlement boundary.

Mr Chris Offord

Chris Offord Consultancy

3046 Yes

I agree with the principles set out in paragraphs 9.11 and 9.12. Morpeth should expand to Support for the approach to defining the inner meet its Key Settlement and Growth Point roles by developing north towards the Proposed By- boundaries around Morpeth is noted. Pass, whilst having regard to the local environmental designations..

Mrs Sanger

7820 No

I am broadly supportive of the principles of NCC's approach to setting inner Green Belt boundary. However I am concerned that the approach is framed in terms of seeking a trade-off or balance implying a win-lose situation. The local ‘environmental capacity' is such that loss of key open spaces could lead to the total non-functioning of wildlife corridors. There is no scope for incremental loss of environmental benefit.

Mrs Annie Wright

8015 Yes

Schedule of comments and responses

General support for the Council's proposed approach to the inner Green Belt boundary around Morpeth is noted. Environmental issues will be taken into consideration in defining the boundary and will also be addressed by environmental and green infrastructure policies. I am broadly supportive of the principles of NCC's approach to setting inner Green Belt General support for the Council's proposed boundary. However I am concerned that the approach is framed in terms of seeking a trade-off approach to the inner Green Belt boundary or balance implying a win-lose situation. The local ‘environmental capacity' is such that loss around Morpeth is noted. Environmental issues of key open spaces could lead to the total non-functioning of wildlife corridors. There is no will be taken into consideration in defining the scope for incremental loss of environmental benefit. boundary and will also be addressed by Core Strategy environmental and green infrastructure policies.

Page 80

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 40: Is the proposed approach to defining the inner Morpeth Green Belt boundary appropriate? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response Comments ID

Mr Stephen Lloyd

8048 Yes

I am broadly supportive of the principles of NCC's approach to setting inner Green Belt boundary. However I am concerned that the approach is framed in terms of seeking a trade-off or balance implying a win-lose situation. The local ‘environmental capacity' is such that loss of key open spaces could lead to the total non-functioning of wildlife corridors. There is no scope for incremental loss of environmental benefit.

Miss Eloise Quayle

8197 No

I am broadly supportive of the principles of NCC's approach to setting inner Green Belt boundary. However I am concerned that the approach is framed in terms of seeking a trade-off or balance implying a win-lose situation. The local ‘environmental capacity' is such that loss of key open spaces could lead to the total non-functioning of wildlife corridors. There is no scope for incremental loss of environmental benefit.

Mr Murray Macrae

11150 Yes

Ms Wendy Mason

11174 Yes

I am broadly supportive of the principles of NCC's approach to setting inner Green Belt boundary. However I am concerned that the approach is framed in terms of seeking a trade-off or balance implying a win-lose situation. The local ‘environmental capacity' is such that loss of key open spaces could lead to the total non-functioning of wildlife corridors. There is no scope for incremental loss of environmental benefit.

Mrs Judith Quayle

11232 Yes

I am broadly supportive of the principles of NCC's approach to setting inner Green Belt boundary. However I am concerned that the approach is framed in terms of seeking a trade-off or balance implying a win-lose situation. The local ‘environmental capacity' is such that loss of key open spaces could lead to the total non-functioning of wildlife corridors. There is no scope for incremental loss of environmental benefit.

Mr and Mrs Sill

11246 Yes

I am broadly supportive of the principles of NCC's approach to setting inner Green Belt boundary. However I am concerned that the approach is framed in terms of seeking a trade-off or balance implying a win-lose situation. The local ‘environmental capacity' is such that loss of key open spaces could lead to the total non-functioning of wildlife corridors. There is no scope for incremental loss of environmental benefit.

Mrs Trimmings

11260 Yes

I am broadly supportive of the principles of NCC's approach to setting inner Green Belt boundary. However I am concerned that the approach is framed in terms of seeking a trade-off or balance implying a win-lose situation. The local ‘environmental capacity' is such that loss of key open spaces could lead to the total non-functioning of wildlife corridors. There is no scope for incremental loss of environmental benefit.

Mrs Jane Cockburn

11283 Yes

I am broadly supportive of the principles of NCC's approach to setting inner Green Belt boundary. However I am concerned that the approach is framed in terms of seeking a trade-off or balance implying a win-lose situation. The local ‘environmental capacity' is such that loss of key open spaces could lead to the total non-functioning of wildlife corridors. There is no scope for incremental loss of environmental benefit.

Schedule of comments and responses

Council's response

General support for the Council's proposed approach to the inner Green Belt boundary around Morpeth is noted. Environmental issues will be taken into consideration in defining the boundary and will also be addressed by Core Strategy environmental and green infrastructure policies.

General support for the Council's proposed approach to the inner Green Belt boundary around Morpeth is noted. Environmental issues will be taken into consideration in defining the boundary and will also be addressed by environmental and green infrastructure policies. I am broadly supportive of the principles of NCC's approach to setting inner Green Belt General support for the Council's proposed boundary. However I am concerned that the approach is framed in terms of seeking a trade-off approach to the inner Green Belt boundary or balance implying a win-lose situation. The local ‘environmental capacity' is such that loss around Morpeth is noted. Environmental issues of key open spaces could lead to the total non-functioning of wildlife corridors. There is no will be taken into consideration in defining the scope for incremental loss of environmental benefit. boundary and will also be addressed by Core Strategy environmental and green infrastructure policies.

Page 81

General support for the Council's proposed approach to the inner Green Belt boundary around Morpeth is noted. Environmental issues will be taken into consideration in defining the boundary and will also be addressed by Core Strategy environmental and green infrastructure policies. General support for the Council's proposed approach to the inner Green Belt boundary around Morpeth is noted. Environmental issues will be taken into consideration in defining the boundary and will also be addressed by Core Strategy environmental and green infrastructure policies. General support for the Council's proposed approach to the inner Green Belt boundary around Morpeth is noted. Environmental issues will be taken into consideration in defining the boundary and will also be addressed by Core Strategy environmental and green infrastructure policies. General support for the Council's proposed approach to the inner Green Belt boundary around Morpeth is noted. Environmental issues will be taken into consideration in defining the boundary and will also be addressed by Core Strategy environmental and green infrastructure policies. General support for the Council's proposed approach to the inner Green Belt boundary around Morpeth is noted. Environmental issues will be taken into consideration in defining the boundary and will also be addressed by Core Strategy environmental and green infrastructure policies.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 40: Is the proposed approach to defining the inner Morpeth Green Belt boundary appropriate? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response Comments ID

Miss Caroline Daisy Cockburn

11297 Yes

I am broadly supportive of the principles of NCC's approach to setting inner Green Belt boundary. However I am concerned that the approach is framed in terms of seeking a trade-off or balance implying a win-lose situation. The local ‘environmental capacity' is such that loss of key open spaces could lead to the total non-functioning of wildlife corridors. There is no scope for incremental loss of environmental benefit.

Miss Louisa Traquair Cockburn

11314 Yes

I am broadly supportive of the principles of NCC's approach to setting inner Green Belt boundary. However I am concerned that the approach is framed in terms of seeking a trade-off or balance implying a win-lose situation. The local ‘environmental capacity' is such that loss of key open spaces could lead to the total non-functioning of wildlife corridors. There is no scope for incremental loss of environmental benefit.

Mr Frank William Cockburn

11330 Yes

I am broadly supportive of the principles of NCC's approach to setting inner Green Belt boundary. However I am concerned that the approach is framed in terms of seeking a trade-off or balance implying a win-lose situation. The local ‘environmental capacity' is such that loss of key open spaces could lead to the total non-functioning of wildlife corridors. There is no scope for incremental loss of environmental benefit.

Mrs Clare Kendall

11368 Yes

I am broadly supportive of the principles of NCC's approach to setting inner Green Belt boundary. However I am concerned that the approach is framed in terms of seeking a trade-off or balance implying a win-lose situation. The local ‘environmental capacity' is such that loss of key open spaces could lead to the total non-functioning of wildlife corridors. There is no scope for incremental loss of environmental benefit.

Mrs Mary Murray

11381 Yes

I am broadly supportive of the principles of NCC's approach to setting inner Green Belt boundary. However I am concerned that the approach is framed in terms of seeking a trade-off or balance implying a win-lose situation. The local ‘environmental capacity' is such that loss of key open spaces could lead to the total non-functioning of wildlife corridors. There is no scope for incremental loss of environmental benefit.

Mr David William Lindley Penn

11405 Yes

I am broadly supportive of the principles of NCC's approach to setting inner Green Belt boundary. However I am concerned that the approach is framed in terms of seeking a trade-off or balance implying a win-lose situation. The local ‘environmental capacity' is such that loss of key open spaces could lead to the total non-functioning of wildlife corridors. There is no scope for incremental loss of environmental benefit.

Mrs Gay Penn

11418 Yes

I am broadly supportive of the principles of NCC's approach to setting inner Green Belt boundary. However I am concerned that the approach is framed in terms of seeking a trade-off or balance implying a win-lose situation. The local ‘environmental capacity' is such that loss of key open spaces could lead to the total non-functioning of wildlife corridors. There is no scope for incremental loss of environmental benefit.

Mr David Richardson

11437 Yes

I am broadly supportive of the principles of NCC's approach to setting inner Green Belt boundary. However I am concerned that the approach is framed in terms of seeking a trade-off or balance implying a win-lose situation. The local ‘environmental capacity' is such that loss of key open spaces could lead to the total non-functioning of wildlife corridors. There is no scope for incremental loss of environmental benefit.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 82

Council's response

General support for the Council's proposed approach to the inner Green Belt boundary around Morpeth is noted. Environmental issues will be taken into consideration in defining the boundary and will also be addressed by Core Strategy environmental and green infrastructure policies. General support for the Council's proposed approach to the inner Green Belt boundary around Morpeth is noted. Environmental issues will be taken into consideration in defining the boundary and will also be addressed by Core Strategy environmental and green infrastructure policies. General support for the Council's proposed approach to the inner Green Belt boundary around Morpeth is noted. Environmental issues will be taken into consideration in defining the boundary and will also be addressed by Core Strategy environmental and green infrastructure policies. General support for the Council's proposed approach to the inner Green Belt boundary around Morpeth is noted. Environmental issues will be taken into consideration in defining the boundary and will also be addressed by Core Strategy environmental and green infrastructure policies. General support for the Council's proposed approach to the inner Green Belt boundary around Morpeth is noted. Environmental issues will be taken into consideration in defining the boundary and will also be addressed by Core Strategy environmental and green infrastructure policies. General support for the Council's proposed approach to the inner Green Belt boundary around Morpeth is noted. Environmental issues will be taken into consideration in defining the boundary and will also be addressed by Core Strategy environmental and green infrastructure policies. General support for the Council's proposed approach to the inner Green Belt boundary around Morpeth is noted. Environmental issues will be taken into consideration in defining the boundary and will also be addressed by Core Strategy environmental and green infrastructure policies. General support for the Council's proposed approach to the inner Green Belt boundary around Morpeth is noted. Environmental issues will be taken into consideration in defining the boundary and will also be addressed by Core Strategy environmental and green infrastructure policies.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 40: Is the proposed approach to defining the inner Morpeth Green Belt boundary appropriate? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Mr Richard Woolhouse

Mrs Janet Oliver

Mrs Angela Simmons

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response Comments ID 424 No

2114 No

429 No

I generally agree with the sentiments expressed in 9.11 but feel the green belt designation needs a little adjustment. If Clifton is to remain a seperate village it would make sense for the green belt to include the area to the south of the current boundary of the Loansdean Estate, carrying round to include the land between High House Lane and the A1. Morpeth Town Centre is to the north of the Wansbeck and thus I think issues relating to green belt designation around the old hospital sites, KEVI and the bypass need careful thought since if there is to be any new land made available for housing, this would be more readily accessible to the main amenities. There would clearly need to be consideration given to topography, wildlife corridors etc. Within the current residential boundaries there are a number of sites available for building. I know builders make more profit on green field sites and thus lobby hard for incursions onto such sites but need to be working to the town's advantage not just their own. I strongly believe that the South Morpeth green belt should butt up tightly to the existing settlement boundary to the south of Loansdean. The amount of green space to the south of Morpeth is not vast should not be encroached upon. It would change the very character of the town, to it's detriment.

Support for the approach to defining the inner boundaries around Morpeth is noted as is the view that the southern inner boundary should be drawn tightly to the existing settlement boundary, as defined in the Morpeth Local Plan. Environmental issues will be taken into consideration in defining the boundary and will also be addressed by environmental and green infrastructure policies.

I totally Agree with 9.11 however, the South Morpeth green belt inner boundary should remain in line with the current settlement boundary. If this were to change it is my opinion that the whole character of the approach into what is an historic market town will be lost. I also think it is of paramount importance to maintain the green corridor between Clifton and Morpeth and retain the rural feel of the area. With the proposed Northern by pass in mind it would surely make more sense to develop on more appropriate brown field sites to the North of the town thus avoiding more traffic across the already congested Telford bridge.

Support for the approach to defining the inner boundaries around Morpeth is noted as is the view that the southern inner boundary should be drawn tightly to the existing settlement boundary, as defined in the Morpeth Local Plan.

National and Local Green Belt policy will be applied equally to all areas designated as Green Belt. However it is considered necessary to leave space around the town that is not covered by Green Belt to allow Morpeth's future development needs to be met. National and Local Green Belt policy will be applied equally to all areas designated as Green Belt. However it is considered necessary to leave space around the town that is not covered by Green Belt to allow Morpeth's future development needs to be met. National and Local Green Belt policy will be applied equally to all areas designated as Green Belt. However it is considered necessary to leave space around the town that is not covered by Green Belt to allow Morpeth's future development needs to be met. National and Local Green Belt policy will be applied equally to all areas designated as Green Belt. However it is considered necessary to leave space around the town that is not covered by Green Belt to allow Morpeth's future development needs to be met.

Mr Hugh Cheswright

11031

If an area justifies Green Belt status we see no reason for defining an inner and outer zone. The same controlling criteria should apply to the whole Green Belt we need clarification of what these terms refer to i.e. the distinction between inner and outer greenbelts?

Mrs Jean Cheswright

11076

If an area justifies Green Belt status we see no reason for defining an inner and outer zone. The same controlling criteria should apply to the whole Green Belt we need clarification of what these terms refer to i.e. the distinction between inner and outer greenbelts?

Mrs M Cowan

2965 No

If an area justifies Green Belt status we see no reason for defining an inner and outer zone. The same controlling criteria should apply to the whole Green Belt. We need clarification of what these terms refer to i.e. the distinction between inner and outer greenbelts.

Mr W A Cowan

2342

If an area justifies Green belt status we see no reason for defining an inner and outer zone. The same controlling criteria should apply to the whole Green Belt. We need clarification of what these terms refer to i.e. the distinction between the inner and outer Green Belts.

Dr. John Paul O'Neill

5869 No

If an area justifies Green Belt status we see no reason for defining an inner and outer zone. The same controlling criteria should apply to the whole Green Belt. We need clarification of what these terms refer to i.e. the distinction between the inner and outer Green Belts.

Schedule of comments and responses

Council's response

Page 83

Support for the approach to defining the inner boundaries around Morpeth is noted as is the view that the southern inner boundary should be drawn tightly to the existing settlement boundary, as defined in the Morpeth Local Plan.

National and Local Green Belt policy will be applied equally to all areas designated as Green Belt. However it is considered necessary to leave space around the town that is not covered by Green Belt to allow Morpeth's future development needs to be met.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 40: Is the proposed approach to defining the inner Morpeth Green Belt boundary appropriate? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Mr John Dowson

Sir or Madam

Northern Farmers & Landowners Group

Councillor Jim Scott

Ulgham Parish Council

N'land T&W NHS Foundation Trust

Sir or Madam

Mitford Estate

Miss G Turner

Morpeth Town Council

Schedule of comments and responses

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Mr John Coxon

Emery Planning Partnership

Mr Angus CollingwoodCameron

AECC Consulting

Mrs Katherine Brooker

Dickinson Dees LLP

Ms Sandra Manson

Signet Planning

Comment Response Comments ID 12100

If the main purpose of the Green Belt extension is to retain the special setting and character of The view that the inner Green Belt boundary Morpeth by preventing it from merging with other settlements, then the Green Belt should be should be drawn tightly around Morpeth is noted. drawn more tightly around the existing built-up area of Morpeth.

8791 No

Is an inner and outer really needed? I suggest just sticking with the inner.

5544 Yes

Is the by-pass absolutely necessary?

6263 Yes

It is acknowledged and welcomed that paragraph 9.12 (of the draft Core Strategy) states that the northern boundary of the Green Belt will be drawn with regard to Northgate Hospital. However, it is not made express what form this will take as this is to be considered in the next round of the plan, so the following representation is made to this round of consultation: The inner boundary of the Green Belt to the north of Morpeth should wrap around Northgate hospital site and proposed route of the by-pass. This will enable Morpeth the flexibility to take the benefit of development potential unlocked by the by-pass while also achieving the permanence of the Green Belt boundary beyond the plan period. It will also enable an element of new-build at the hospital should this be required for operational reasons in the future, without being in conflict with the plan (a Severe Autism Unit has outline planning permission on the site). If the site is 'washed over' by the Green Belt, only approximate replacement of built form would be allowed where it did not affect the openness of the Green Belt and this could potentially unduly and unreasonably restrict the operation of the hospital. The drawing of the Green Belt boundary to the north of Northgate Hospital will enable Morpeth to meet the future development needs of a Tier 1 settlement, ensure permanence beyond the plan period and will fulfil the five purposes of Green Belt as defined at para 80 of the NPPF.'

10298

1211 Yes

Council's response

Mitford Estate support the exclusion of Tier 1 and 2 settlements from the Green Belt with an inset boundary to be identified. In this respect, we consider that all land that lies within that potential Green Belt boundary needs to be appropriately reviewed and assessed for its opportunities to meet housing and economic needs for the Borough as a whole. This includes the need to allocate sufficient land to meet the economic and housing needs for the plan period as a minimum, including the use of safeguarding of land if appropriate. The aspirations of Mitford Estate regarding its land holdings to the north of Morpeth need to be considered in relation to the delivery of Morpeth bypass, and the opportunities it affords to north Morpeth to meet housing and economic needs. This needs to be considered in detail in moving the plan forward. In this context it is considered that the Authority should be moving towards a Local Plan approach with site allocation being identified through this plan approach in accordance with the NPPF.

National and Local Green Belt policy will be applied equally to all areas designated as Green Belt. However it is considered necessary to leave space around the town that is not covered by Green Belt to allow Morpeth's future development needs to be met. Funding for the bypass has already been approved Support for the general approach to the inner Green Belt boundary around Morpeth is noted. Also noted are comments in relation to ensuring future development around the Northgate Hospital site at Fairmoor. Evidence of future development needs will be required to support definition of the inner Green Belt boundary around Morpeth and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage. Support for the general approach to the inner Green Belt boundary around Morpeth is noted. Also noted are comments in relation to ensuring future development north of Morpeth. Evidence of future development needs will be required to support definition of the inner Green Belt boundary around Morpeth and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

MTC broadly support the principles of NCC's approach to setting inner Green Belt boundary. Support for the approach to defining the inner We expect consideration of this boundary to be a key part of our NP consultation process. We boundaries around Morpeth is noted as is the therefore recommend an ongoing collaborative approach. anticipation of a collaborative approach to defining those boundaries. The council welcomes stakeholder input and there will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant

Page 84

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 40: Is the proposed approach to defining the inner Morpeth Green Belt boundary appropriate? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response Comments ID

Mr Christopher C S Hills

444 Yes

Mr Christopher C S Hills

445 No

Mr Robert Ramsay Mrs Kathleen Mavin

Ponteland Town Council

Schedule of comments and responses

7073 9735

My view is that there should be no more building of residential or commercial property to the south of the existing building line on the southern side of Loansdean, ie. nothing to be built south of Fairway / The Chip. As one approaches from the south, the 1950's South Loansdean properties are relatively well hidden behind the contours of the rising ground and trees along the A197 and this situation should remain unchanged. Because of the contour lines, any further southward building would be on the rise of the ground, be in view all the way from Clifton and would totally spoil the approach to the town from the south. Additionally, the occupiers of any projected property south of the existing building line would be nearly 2 miles away from the town centre and its facilities, way beyond walking distance. Unless the bus was used, car transport (adding to the already congested and over used Telford Bridge - carrying 23000 vehicles a day, I believe) would be necessary therefore contributing to the carbon footprint. All the relevant town schools are either at, or some way beyond Telford Bridge, any development of 200 or more houses would effectively contribute between one half and three quarters of a mile of single line traffic at morning peak school times which would be impracticable and unacceptable. Furthermore, certain properties on the existing south Loansdean are already prone to garden flooding. Because of impervious surfaces which would accompany any projected development. surface water would have even less chance of being soaked up by the ground at times of heavy rain and would increase the risk of flooding even more. Therefore I believe that the southern building line of the town should remain as it is and I would object to any plan to extend it further. My view is that there should be no more building of residential or commercial property to the south of the existing building line on the southern side of Loansdean, ie. nothing to be built south of Fairway / The Chip. As one approaches from the south, the 1950's South Loansdean properties are relatively well hidden behind the contours of the rising ground and trees along the A197 and this situation should remain unchanged. Because of the contour lines, any further southward building would be on the rise of the ground, be in view all the way from Clifton and would totally spoil the approach to the town from the south Additionally, the occupiers of any projected property south of the existing building line would be nearly 2 miles away from the town centre and its facilities, way beyond walking distance. Unless the bus was used, car transport (adding to the already congested and over used Telford Bridge - carrying 23000 vehicles a day, I believe) would be necessary therefore contributing to the carbon footprint. All the relevant town schools are either at, or some way beyond Telford Bridge, any development of 200 or more houses would effectively contribute between one half and three quarters of a mile of single line traffic at morning peak school times which would be impracticable and unacceptable. Furthermore, certain properties on the existing south Loansdean are already prone to garden flooding. Because of impervious surfaces which would accompany any projected development. surface water would have even less chance of being soaked up by the ground at times of heavy rain and would increase the risk of flooding even more. Therefore I believe that the southern building line of the town should remain as it is and I would object to any plan to extend it further. No comment No comment – defer to Morpeth.

Page 85

Council's response

Support for the approach to defining the inner boundaries around Morpeth is noted as is the view that the southern inner boundary should be drawn tightly to the existing settlement boundary.

The view that the southern inner boundary should be drawn tightly to the existing settlement boundary is noted.

No response required. No response required.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 40: Is the proposed approach to defining the inner Morpeth Green Belt boundary appropriate? Full Name

Mr Dominic Smith

Mr and Mrs Jim and Susan Norris Mrs Lucinda FlemingJones Mr David Feeney Mrs Zaina Riddle Mrs Patricia Wilson Mr Neil Wilson

Company / Organisation (if applicable) Persimmon Homes

Mitford Parish Council Slaley Parish Council Glendale Gateway Trust & Wooler Parish Council

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response Comments ID 982 No

Council's response

No comment wthout detailed proposal. The primary asset of a green belt is its permanence (NPPF para. 79) and as such the boundaries need to take into account the potential for development for the duration of the plan period and beyond. A key component of this CS is the delivery of North Morpeth and appropriate boundaries need to be drawn now so that expansion for Morpeth over the next 15-20 years can be properly and strategically planned. We do not believe that the CS is sufficiently robust if it ‘ducks' the need to draw the proposed boundary now. The strategic expansion of Morpeth is a crucial and urgent matter for the future of the county, and the inner green belt boundary will play a critical role in the success or failure of this. We consider that the inner green belt boundary should take into account the proposed northern bypass and the potential for development to the north and south of this major piece of infrastructure

The council's view is that the extension to the Green Belt around Morpeth has been established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5 and the council is now going through the process of defining boundaries as described in NPPF paragraph 85. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support definition of an inner Green Belt boundary around Morpeth and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

6999

No preference

No response required.

3051

No preference.

No response required.

9350 No 8945 No 7875 519

No, see response to Q38 above. Not applicable Not in a position to comment constructively on this. Not relevant to us.

Rejection of approach noted. Rejection of approach noted. No response required. No response required.

Mr Iain Hay

448 No

The area to the south needs to be further protected. As Morpeth is entered from the A1 from The view that the southern inner Green Belt the south we currently have an established settlement boundary at Loansdean which clearly boundary around Morpeth should be drawn tightly defines the town and is distinct from Clifton. This needs to be maintained to preserve the to the existing settlement boundary is noted. character of the town. In addition I support the idea of development at the sites to the north as more facilities are present on the north of the town. No GPs will be present on the south side of town when Gas House Lane moves to the mount and facilities are limited. In addition the pressure on schools in this area is high. Whilst development on the south seems to be ok in that it will not apply significant pressure on the intake of the schools I don't believe this to be the case. Consideration must be given to the fact that the middle schools and KEVI already have children from outside the catchment area, additional spaces must be maintained at the schools as younger siblings of these pupils already in the system must be accomodated. Finally it is important that no development takes place on green field sites until such time as the neigbourhood plan has been completed.

Mrs Isabell O'Brien

437 Yes

The boundary that has been outlined within the plan should not be compromised. The Southern boundary should remain to retain the rural character of the approach into Morpeth from the South and maintain separation from Clifton. Alleviating the already congested areas of traffic at the Sun Inn Junction , The Cenotaph roundabout and the Telford Bridge trying to reach shops and schools over the Wansbeck. The comments in paragraphs 9.11 and 9.12 are particularly appropriate for the protection of Clifton and the A197 corridor. The Green Belt boundary of Morpeth to the south should be maintained in line with the current settlement boundary and should retain clear Green Belt between that boundary and Clifton. Merger between Morpeth and Clifton would be more disadvantageous to the environment than that between Clifton and Hepscott in that it would have an adverse affect on the amenities of a greater proportion of the existing population.

Strachan

Clifton Residents Association

Mrs Valerie Dodds

Schedule of comments and responses

4109 Yes 289 No

Page 86

Support for the approach to defining the inner boundaries around Morpeth is noted as is the view that the southern inner boundary should be drawn tightly to the existing settlement boundary. Comment noted. The view that the southern inner boundary around Morpeth should follow the line of the existing settlement boundary, as defined in the Morpeth Local Plan is noted. As is the view that merger between Clifton and Morpeth would have more serious consequences than merger between Hepscott and Morpeth.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 40: Is the proposed approach to defining the inner Morpeth Green Belt boundary appropriate? Full Name

Ms Caroline Strugnell

Company / Organisation (if applicable) Bellway Homes Limited

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Mrs Carolyn Telford

Mr David Moore

The Green Belt boundary should be drawn cognisant of the need to safeguard sufficient land to accommodate Morpeth's future expansion and ensure the permanence of the Green Belt. Land to the south of Morpeth at Catchburn (see enclosed plan) provides an opportunity to accommodate future development in a location relatively unconstrained by landscape designations. We note the principles for defining Morpeth's southern inner Green Belt boundary at Para 9.12 include retaining the rural character of the rising ground to the south and separation from Clifton/Hepscott. We look forward to working with the Council to identify an appropriate southern boundary cognisant of the requirement for future development and the demonstrable landscape capacity for development in this location. Bellway Homes supports the Council's approach to define the northern Green Belt boundary having regard to the proposed bypass route which would provide a logical southern boundary.

Support for the approach to defining the inner boundaries around Morpeth is noted as is the view that the southern inner boundary should be drawn tightly to the existing settlement boundary.

2115 No

The green belt must go tightly up to the existing settlement boundary to the south of Loansdean.

Support for the approach to defining the inner boundaries around Morpeth is noted as is the view that the southern inner boundary should be drawn tightly to the existing settlement boundary.

3255

Trustees of G.Charlton Junior

Schedule of comments and responses

Mr Alastair Willis

Signet Planning

Council's response

2243 Yes

292 No

Mr Keith Butler

Sir or Madam

Comment Response Comments ID

10273 No

the green belt should extent fully around Morpeth , and in the southern area should link up to the line of the A1

Support for the general approach to extending the Green Belt around Morpeth is noted. However it is not clear what the consultees means in regard to The information currently available is far too vague to comment on proposals and further Evidence of future development needs will be consideration needs to be given to specific locations and areas which may be entirely suitable required to support definition of the inner Green as rounding out locations or infill opportunities where the impact will not be significant on the Belt boundary around Morpeth and the Council is aims of Green Belt Policy. carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage. The inner Green Belt boundary must ensure there is sufficient scope to accommodate future growth aspirations and there is a concern that absolute reliance on development to the north, subject to delivery of the bypass, could constrain future options for development. Irrespective of the development aspirations to the north of Morpeth, which will have to be subject to planning applications determined in accordance with their own individual merits at the appropriate time, other areas of Morpeth (including the land to the rear of Salisbury Street) which are not subject to any designations such as landscape value should not be included within the Green Belt. In this respect the designation of Green Belt tight against the existing eastern boundary is objected to. Extension of the Green Belt in this area would not be consistent with the criteria at paragraph 82 of the NPPF. In the context of paragraph 82, there is no demonstration of why normal development management policies would not be adequate in this area; there are no major changes in circumstances in this area of Morpeth; there is no demonstration of the consequences on sustainable development; and, there is no necessity for Green Belt in this area. Finally, this area of Morpeth is not consistent with the purposes of Green Belt set out at paragraph 80 of the NPPF; in that: • Development would not result in unrestricted sprawl; • Development would not result in merging towns; • Development would not result in encroachment into the countryside; • Development would not result in harm to the setting of Morpeth; and • Designation as Green Belt would not promote regeneration of brownfield sites as there is an accepted lack of previously developed sites in Morpeth.

Page 87

Comments in relation to the need to accommodate future growth aspirations are noted. Evidence of future development needs will be required to support definition of the inner Green Belt boundary around Morpeth and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 40: Is the proposed approach to defining the inner Morpeth Green Belt boundary appropriate? Full Name

Ms Sue Howie

Company / Organisation (if applicable) Northumberland and Newcastle Society

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response Comments ID 8467

Council's response

The proposals (in paragraph 9.12) seem to impose a tight boundary around most of the town Comments noted. except at the northern end, where the boundary is to be defined by the proposed Northern Bypass and Northgate hospital. There is no plan showing the inner boundary. The green belt in this vicinity is being promoted to preserve the setting and special character of Morpeth as an historic town. Thus this setting should not be compromised by inappropriate and intrusive developments – such as wind turbines. Therefore, while the general approach of the plan is acceptable there is urgent need to consult on the line of the inner boundary.

Dr Alistair Blair

430 No

The South Morpeth Green belt inner boundary should be in line with the current settlement boundary

Mrs Alison McDonald

388 No

The South Morpeth Green Belt should remain in line with the current boundary. Further expansion of residential area south of Loansdean (Bellway proposal) is not in keeping with maintaining Morpeth's current character and balance.

411 No

The southern boundary should be drawn tightly to the existing edge of the urban area to preserve the character and setting of Morpeth, and avoid encroachment into the countryside.

The view that the southern inner Green Belt boundary around Morpeth should be drawn tightly to the existing settlement boundary is noted.

The southern boundary should be tightly drawn to reflect the current settlement boundary as in the eastern and western boundaries. Any development to the south of Loansdean would detract from the rural aspect, in particular the avenue of trees which forms an outstanding approach into Morpeth from the south. The 'market town' character needs to be preserved and the quality of our surroundings. This is not considered appropriate. The western boundary should be more flexible outside the immediate confines of the Wansbeck Green Infrastructure Corridor. The southern Boundary should follow the topography of the rising land to the south to envelop some safeguarded land that might allow future growth alongside the southern edge of the town without being visually intrusive from the south. The eastern boundary should follow the eastern boundary to Park House Farm to the east to allow future growth of employment land. All existing settlements, whether listed in the 5 Tiers currently or not, should not be washed over Green Belt to allow of better qualitative assessment of proposals.

The view that the southern inner Green Belt boundary around Morpeth should be drawn tightly to the existing settlement boundary is noted.

4165 No

This question does not make sense.

No response required.

6814 No

This question does not make sense.

No response required.

8103 Yes

Treatment of Green Belt settlements (9.14 to 9.15). I agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Green Belt.

Support for the Council's approach noted.

7184

We agree that the Western and Eastern boundaries should be tightly drawn to the settlement edge as in para. 9.12. We agree that the Northern boundary has some flexibility and should be drawn with regard to the Morpeth Northern Bypass route, Northgate Hospital and the bypass to Pegswood. We agree with the approach to the Southern boundary but we feel that this will be best achieved by tightly drawing the boundary to the existing settlement edge. Whilst the above strategic approach, with the amendments we have suggested, would be appropriate and should be included in the Core Strategy, we feel that a precise inner boundary (para.9.13) should best be determined in the Neighbourhood Plan.

Support for the Council's approach noted. Green Belt boundaries are required to be defined in Local Plans rather than Neighbourhood Plans however the council welcomes stakeholder input and there will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Mr Robert Barnes

Dransfield Properties Ltd Mr Robert Barnes

Planning Prospects Ltd

Mrs Ros Teasdale

1369 No

Mr B George

Ms Karen Carins Ms Karen Carins

Mr Simon Beeby

Stannington Station Residents Association Stannington Parish Council

Mr John Carpenter

Mrs Barbara Martin

Morpeth & District Civic Society

Schedule of comments and responses

Strutt & Parker LLP

8464 No

Page 88

The view that the southern inner Green Belt boundary around Morpeth should be drawn tightly to the existing settlement boundary is noted. The view that the southern inner Green Belt boundary around Morpeth should be drawn tightly to the existing settlement boundary is noted.

Comments on the proposed inner Green Belt boundary around Morpeth noted as are the comment that existing settlements should be washed over by the Green Belt.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 40: Is the proposed approach to defining the inner Morpeth Green Belt boundary appropriate? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Mrs Ann Rutter

Mrs Judith Hornby

Mr Len Brady

Schedule of comments and responses

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response Comments ID 4381 No

427 No

2245 Yes

Council's response

We need clarification of what these terms refer to - i.e. the distinction between inner and outer National and Local Green Belt policy will be green belts? applied equally to all areas designated as Green Belt. However it is considered necessary to leave space around the town that is not covered by Green Belt to allow Morpeth's future development needs to be met. We strongly object to the proposed building on the fields south of Loansdean as this will have Objection to the South of Loansdean housing site a detrimental effect on the South Morpeth Green Belt area. As most of the shops, schools, is noted. No response is required. leisure facilities and other commercial facilities are north of the river, the volume of traffic having to cross the Telford Bridge will be increased and will cause more problems to an already over-used access to the centre of town. We feel that the character of this market town will be changed beyond recognition and it will lose its unique heritage if new housing developments are allowed to proceed. This is a greenfield site, outside the town settlement boundary established by the Castle Morpeth District Local Plan back in 2003, and is unsustainable. Whilst broadly in support of the proposed approach that is being advocated by the Council in Support for the general approach to the inner relation to the establishment of the inner Morpeth Green Belt boundary, we believe that the Green Belt boundary around Morpeth is noted. suggested approach can be further strengthened. Concerning the north boundary specifically Also noted are comments in relation to ensuring and the proposal to take account of the proposed route of the bypass as well as Northgate future development north of Morpeth. Evidence of Hospital when determining where the boundary shall be, we are strongly of the view that this future development needs will be required to would be feasible so long as the agreed boundary takes into account the following issues: support definition of the inner Green Belt the awarding of conditional Planning approval on the Northgate Hospital site; and - the boundary around Morpeth and the Council is proposals that we are aware of for the potential development of a Business Park (by carrying out population modelling to assess the Persimmon) adjacent to Northgate Hospital and to the immediate east of the bypass route It level of development required across the County. would seem logical that the above is taken into consideration when determining the actual Such evidence will be used to define inset northern boundary of the inner Morpeth Green Belt and therefore in our opinion it would defy boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent logic if the boundary simply followed the route of the bypass meaning that these proposed delivery or allocations stage Development Plan developments would sit out of the inner Green Belt. This would seem hypocritical. Therefore, Document. There will be opportunities to discuss the alternative that we are suggesting would be to accommodate the aforementioned two any new proposals at the relevant stage. planned developments outside of the Green Belt and the for the inner Green Belt northern boundary to follow the line of the bypass circulating around Northgate and then to follow the Cutting Burn back down to the proposed new link road. This suggestion in our opinion provides a fully workable and logical way forward for the inner Morpeth Green Belt northern boundary that allows for already agreed developments to take place that will boost the area's economy but in a way that will not harm or hinder the actual Green Belt itself and will also satisfy the stated overarching key principles behind the suggested approach (i.e. maintaining an appropriate balance between developments needs, environmental, landscape and green infrastructure factors, and ensuring permanence beyond the plan period). This alternative boundary that we are proposing would also align with the stated general approach to the Green Belt provided in paragraph 9.1 as well as the principles behind the proposed Morpeth Green Belt extension that are listed in paragraph 9.4. As long-time residents of Morpeth and active contributors to the local economy, we believe that the proposals that we have outlined above are in the best interests of our town, its' residents and visitors. Please refer to attached plan, showing the natural outline of the cutting burn, marked in blue and highlighted with red arrows.

Page 89

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 40: Is the proposed approach to defining the inner Morpeth Green Belt boundary appropriate? Full Name

Mr Robin Wood

Company / Organisation (if applicable) R&KWood Planning on behalf of various clients

Mr David Dungait

Mrs Joan Tebbutt

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response Comments ID

Mr Robin Wood

R & K Wood Planning LLP

4908 Yes

With particular reference to the north inner boundary the by pass line is appropriate so long as the boundary is set an appropriate distance off the north edge of the by pass line or order to allow development on both side of this key access gateway. Land to the south of the by pass should also have the landscape designations removed or revised, in order to avoid unnecessary restriction on infill development.

Support for the general approach to the inner Green Belt boundary around Morpeth is noted as are comments in relation to future development aspirations associated with the Morpeth Northern Bypass. Evidence of future development needs will be required to support definition of the inner boundary around Morpeth and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Mrs Jennifer Bland

Dickinson Dees LLP

7512 Yes

With regard to the inner Morpeth Green Belt boundary, the approach set out in paragraph 9.12 is acceptable subject to seeing the final detail. The impact of the Morpeth northern bypass is significant, and lends itself to a planned urban extension to northern Morpeth, particularly taking into account the recent planning permission granted at Northgate Hospital and the planned development at the St George's Hospital site. The land owned by the Dungait family (as shown on the attached location plan) and being located to the north of Morpeth up to and beyond the proposed new road has many benefits when considering its future proposed development. It does not suffer from flood risk issues; it would provide a sensible extension to the settlement going beyond the St George's site; it would form a coherent green belt boundary from Northgate and the A1; it is close to existing facilities and services; and it will have excellent access once the bypass is completed. Development of this land represents a sustainable urban extension to a tier 1 settlement. This land should therefore be excluded from the green belt when the detailed boundaries are drawn up. The revised green belt boundary should endure beyond the plan period and it should therefore not only allow current planned development but also foresee future development patterns. We therefore request that the land owned by Dungait family, shown on the attached plan, is excluded from the green belt boundary. As a minimum this should include their land ownership south of the bypass; and to allow future flexibility it should also include their land immediately north of the proposed new road. This would accord with the NPPF paragraph 85 which requires local authorities to meet identified needs for sustainable development; to satisfy themselves that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the plan period; and to define boundaries with physical features. The new road presents an ideal physical feature. The detailed inner Morpeth boundary should ensure that the Green Belt will serve the five purposes sets out in paragraph 80 of the NPPF; and it is clear that land to the south of the bypass will not meet these purposes. It would therefore be unsound to include this land within the Green Belt.

Support for the general approach to the inner Green Belt boundary around Morpeth is noted as are comments in relation to future development aspirations associated with the Morpeth Northern Bypass. Evidence of future development needs will be required to support definition of the inner boundary around Morpeth and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

1880 No

You have got it right apart from the area to the south of Loansdean. The Green Belt must be created right up to the existing town settlement boundary. Had it not been for LGR this would already have been the case. The strategy for development of Morpeth ever since the approval of the DLP in 2003 has been for development to the north of the town. The Council and government have committed millions of pounds of taxpayers money to the link road and there is no way that infrastructure for the town can be upgraded sufficiently to cater for development in both directions. It would not be in the interests of a sustainable Morpeth in the long term. County's lateness in producing the LDF for the county has already led to an opportunistic application from Bellway and could inevitably lead to further applications and that seems to be what Planning Officers want. It is not want the people of Morpeth want and neither does it fit with the County's own commitment to growth to the north of Morpeth. The quicker this wording is changed the better. Stop letting down the people who pay for the council to operate.

General support for the Council's approach is noted as is the view that the southern inner Green Belt boundary around Morpeth should be drawn tightly to the existing settlement boundary.

Mr Tapster

614 Yes

Mr Martin Marsh

709 Yes

Schedule of comments and responses

Council's response

Support for the approach to defining the inner boundaries around Morpeth is noted. Support for the approach to defining the inner boundaries around Morpeth is noted.

Page 90

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 40: Is the proposed approach to defining the inner Morpeth Green Belt boundary appropriate? Full Name

Mr Philip Ham

Company / Organisation (if applicable) Ponteland Civic Society

Mr John Secker

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response Comments ID 1492 Yes

Felton Parish Council

5461 Yes

Mrs Lisa Hamlin

Warkworth Parish Council Acklington Parish Council Thirston Parish Council

5760 Yes

Mrs Lisa Hamlin Mrs Lisa Hamlin Mr Brian Prickett Mr Jack A Feather

Support for the approach to defining the inner boundaries around Morpeth is noted. Support for the approach to defining the inner boundaries around Morpeth is noted. Support for the approach to defining the inner boundaries around Morpeth is noted. Support for the approach to defining the inner boundaries around Morpeth is noted. Support for the approach to defining the inner boundaries around Morpeth is noted. Support for the approach to defining the inner boundaries around Morpeth is noted. Support for the approach to defining the inner boundaries around Morpeth is noted. Support for the approach to defining the inner boundaries around Morpeth is noted.

4755 Yes

Mrs Lisa Hamlin

5960 Yes 6123 Yes 6338 Yes

Tritlington & West Chevington Parish Council

6520 Yes

Mr Chris Winks

8634 Yes

Mr Frank Harrington

9537 Yes

Mr John Harrison

Schedule of comments and responses

Council's response

Support for the approach to defining the inner boundaries around Morpeth is noted. Support for the approach to defining the inner boundaries around Morpeth is noted. Support for the approach to defining the inner boundaries around Morpeth is noted.

10320 Yes

Page 91

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Consultation point: Treatment of Green Belt settlements Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Mrs Carolyn Robinson

Mr Neal White

Mr JRR Prescott

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Title ID 4676 Treatment of Green Belt settlements

61 Treatment of Green Belt settlements

743 Treatment of Green Belt settlements

Comments

Council's response

The Green Belt around Hexham should be preserved in order to maintain the unique character of Hexham and its hinterland.

The Council recognises the special character of Hexham’s character and setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The greenbelt boundaries should be kept as they are for Tier 1 and 2 settlements as the The Core Strategy issues and Options document population growth should be re assessed in light of the figures from Newcastle showing that suggests that given the length of time since the the pouplation is set to drecrease over the coming years. This means that the need for Green Belt was established, some localised housing will be reduced as most of the population increase for the Tyne Valley is due to review of the boundaries may be required to inward migration from Newcastle (section 6.1.4). accommodate appropriate development required Also, all brownfield sites and empty property must be used before any Greenbelt land in during and beyond the Core Strategy plan built on.The bringing back to use of town centre propeerties and flats above shops will serve period. To inform such decisions the Council is several purposes: revieve the centre economy, help to reduce crime because flats etc. are currently updating its population modelling in occupied rather than empty, enhance the quality of town centres as property is refurbished cooperation with neighbouring authorities, which and build a community in town centres. include Newcastle City Council. I have a particular interest in the Hexham Greenbalt boundary and do not believe that an inset boundary is required. This effectively removes Greenbelt protection against further development and sprawl to the edges of Hexham. Greenbelt land helps to retain the character of settlements and is an important carbon sink which mitigates the effects of global warming. Of particular concern are proposals to develop any of the few remaining green field sites within the village. As already mentioned Longhorsley has lost fields to development to the south, southeast, east, northeast and northwest of the village. Development of a holiday cottage outside of the village curtledge to the west was permitted three years ago and now the only unspoilt aspect of the village are the fields to the south and west. It is imperative that the village receives the protection of green belt status and no planning proposals are permitted to be rushed through prior to the adoption of the core strategy in 2013.

The council is of the view that the general extent of the Green Belt around Morpeth has been established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5. That extent would include Longhorsley within the Green Belt and the council is now going through the process of defining boundaries as described in NPPF paragraph 85. To decide how tightly the boundary should be drawn to settlements such as Longhorsley, based on how much development is needed, the Council is currently updating its population modelling for the next stage of the Core Strategy. With regard to any planning applications that may have to be determined before Green Belt boundary extensions are defined it should be noted that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 216 allows for weight to be given to relevant policies in emerging plans as below: “216. From the day of publication, decisiontakers may also give weight [Footnote:40 Unless other material considerations indicate otherwise] to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: - The stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given);

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 92

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Consultation point: Treatment of Green Belt settlements Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Title ID

Comments

Council's response

The Core Strategy issues and Options document suggests that given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities

Mr Martin Marsh

710 Treatment of Green Belt settlements

There is no demonstrable need to review the existing Green Belt boundaries.

Mr Iain Hay

449 Treatment of Green Belt settlements

This seems to state that the drawn up green belt can be ignored where required, this should not happen until brown field sites are exhausted. In addition development of a tier 1 town does not necessarily need to occur as other towns are located within commutable distance. I have concerns that in the example of Morpeth and Hexham development would lead to people living in the towns who work, shop etc solely in Newcastle. They are nice places to live but do not neccesserily have the number of jobs to support development. Northumberland must not be used solely to provide nice houses for Tyneside, our plan and strategies should reflect our requirements.

Mr David Ord

Schedule of comments and responses

6400 Treatment of Green Belt settlements

The view that brownfield or previously developed land should be developed before greenfield land is in line with proposed policy. However detailed definition of the Green Belt boundary around Morpeth will need to have regard for accommodating appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. Proposed Core Strategy objectives include meeting “Northumberland’s objectively assessed development needs including new homes, employment space, services and infrastructure” as well as rebalancing and encouraging “a strong, competitive and diverse Northumberland economy,” rather than just providing for commuter pressure from Newcastle. Tier 1 & 2 should not automatically have inset boundaries taken out of the Green Belt as Settlements proposed for Tiers 1 and 2 in the urban sprawl will damage the landscape and character of our historic towns. Brownfield Core Strategy Issues and Options document, are sites should be developed as a priority. Population predictions have been revised since the those that are considered of sufficient scale and latest census and should be revisited. Inadequate road infrastructure, poor public transport significance to require some development. in rural areas, flooding/sewerage issues need to be considered. Therefore where they are in Green belt or the proposed Green Belt extension they will need to have an inset boundary to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform detailed boundary decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Page 93

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Consultation point: Treatment of Green Belt settlements Full Name

Geoffrey & Margaret / Gail Appleby / ApplebyRafter

Company / Organisation (if applicable) The Appleby Family

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Title ID 9635 Treatment of Green Belt settlements

Comments

Council's response

I wish to raise strong objections to the possible re-designation of the current Greenbelt land The Council considers that, given the length of in and around Ponteland. time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be The green belt areas define Ponteland and its character. The Greenbelt classification is all required to accommodate appropriate that protects our open fields and countryside from the urban sprawl. Just the possibility of a development required during and beyond the re-classification of these lands has raised pound signs in the eyes of developers who are Core Strategy plan period. To inform such already greedily counting up how many houses they can squeeze onto our fields. decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with If the Greenbelt lands are re-zoned it will only be a matter of time before one developer is neighbouring authorities. However it is agreed granted permission to build and that will open the gates to many others. A battle has already that due regard must be given to the setting and had to be fought against plans by developers to over-build the site of the Care Village. character of settlements such as Ponteland and the view that there should a priority for the use of So many of Ponteland’s residents have worked hard all their lives for the privilege of having brownfield over greenfield land is in line with the countryside on their doorstep or an unspoilt view from their windows; coming back to proposed policy. these little luxuries after a hard day’s work somehow make it all seem worthwhile. Not only would de-classifying our Greenbelt areas threaten the investments (the financial, physical and emotional investments that we pour into our homes) of existing residents but it will also rob those who would take advantage of the availability of new homes of the very dream they are trying to buy into. Ponteland may be a desirable area now but how long will it stay that way if our countryside is concreted over? Ponteland already has vacant and derelict premises and land on brown field sites, for example the old Newcastle Computer Centre, the Wine Rack shop and surrounding land, and the Mart site. There are vacant offices to let on the main street and behind the Diamond public house as well. Is it not better to encourage the regeneration of the spaces already available before threatening land that once lost we can never retrieve?

Mr William Moses

3376 Treatment of Green Belt settlements

Development groups such as Banks and Lugano have made their intentions for our Greenbelt land clear and worryingly, they are offering ‘sweetners’ such as a new town centre, improved sporting facilities, a new library...the wishlist goes on, so that we will There should be no change to Green Belt boundaries. In the case of Ponteland the eventual construction of the bypass will of course remove traffic concerns and free up sites with potential for development but a great deal of care needs to be taken to preserve the unique character of the villaged which is what makes it such an attractive place to live and work. This is already seen to be under threat by premature "consultations" by decvelopers One of the charms of the village is swathe of farmland which runs along the Fairney Burn and is a living link to Ponteland's agricultural past. This cuts through the post war frontages onto the A696 which (and unlike Darras Hall), with only a couple of exceptions retain the original low walls and hedgerows along their whole length. Once derided, a key aim for the United Kingdom's post-War planning system was to halt such "Ribbon Development" but now in many areas the pleasing suburban character of such development is being recognised by designation as a Conservation Area

Mrs Carolyn Telford

Schedule of comments and responses

2117 Treatment of Green Belt settlements

The green belt must go tightly up to the existing settlement boundary to the south of Loansdean.

Page 94

The Core Strategy issues and Options document suggests that given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities, including Newcastle City Council. Improvements such as the construction of a by-pass for Ponteland are unlikely to occur without development to contribute to its cost. The view that the Green belt boundary around the south of Morpeth should similar to the existing settlement boundary is in line with proposed policy. However detailed definition of the Green Belt boundary around Morpeth will need to have regard for accommodating appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform this the Council is currently updating its population modelling, in cooperation with neighbouring authorities, which will provide more detailed data on how much land is needed for development. Due consideration will also need to be given to the eventual outcome of the High Court Challenge to the Council’s decision not to grant approval to the planning application for housing South of Loansdean.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Consultation point: Treatment of Green Belt settlements Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Mr and Mrs Bryan and Margaret Ashford

Mr Alan Hunter

English Heritage

Mr Anthony Penketh

Mr and Mrs Peter and Lorraine Richardson Mr Neil Milburn

Comment Title ID

Comments

Council's response

11797 Treatment of Green Belt settlements

In view of the above we wholeheartedly consider that the existing green belt boundary should not be changed and that the current character of Ponteland should be retained and urban sprawl prevented.

The Core Strategy issues and Options document suggests that given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities, which include Newcastle City Council. However it is agreed that due regard must be given to the setting and character of settlements such as Ponteland.

7516 Treatment of Green Belt settlements

Paragraph 9.14 - excluding areas of land from Green Belt in order to allow settlement expansion should not at the same time result in harm to their setting and significance as heritage assets. A loose inner boundary might give rise to settlement expansion into land crucial to the setting of the town. Â Paragraph 86 of the NPPF makes clear that Conservation Area designation can legitimately be used to safeguard the historic character of villages instead of it being included in the Green Belt. It may even allow for appropriate change that would otherwise be prevented by being washed-over by Green Belt designation. The South Morpeth Green Belt inner boundary should be kept in line with the current settlement boundary, as there are still brownfield sites within the boundaries of Morpeth which remain undeveloped, and should be developed before any sites outside the current settlement boundary are developed

The view that localised review of the Green Belt should have due regard to the historic character of settlements is in line with proposed policy. The reference to the use of Conservation Areas to safeguard historic villages rather than Green Belt, as in NPPF, is also noted.

what is good for tier 1 and 2, should be the same for tiers 3 and 4,

Comment noted.

With the development of the site at Hepscott, most likely for a low density high quality executive housing development, we are confident that an effective Green Belt boundary which retained the openness between Morpeth and Hepscott could be retained. The existing tree belt and beck which forms the site's north-western boundary provides a logical Green Belt boundary to Hepscott whilst allowing a small amount of development to the settlement to meet its future needs. See attachment for site plan.

Detailed definition of the Green Belt boundary around Morpeth will need to have regard for accommodating appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period, including in Morpeth and the surrounding area. We have processed your comments in relation to the Core Strategy Issues and Options with regard to the site at Hepscott. The site specific references have not been recorded in the issues and options process but will be used to inform the review of the SHLAA. To help inform detailed boundary decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling, in cooperation with neighbouring authorities and with regard to boundaries on the south side of Morpeth, due consideration will need to be given to the eventual outcome of the High Court Challenge to the Council’s decision not to grant approval to the planning application for housing South of Loansdean.

436 Treatment of Green Belt settlements

Barratt North East

Schedule of comments and responses

Mr Neil Morton

Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners

1299 Treatment of Green Belt settlements 10080 Treatment of Green Belt settlements

Page 95

The view that brownfield or previously developed land should be developed before greenfield land is in line with proposed policy. Detailed definition of the Green Belt boundary around Morpeth will need to have regard for accommodating appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities, which will provide more detailed data on how much ;and is needed for development.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Mrs PM Williams

Company / Agent Name (if Organisation (if applicable) applicable) Broomley and Stocksfield Parish Council

Mr and Mrs P and D Barratt

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID 2260 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Mr Simon Beeby

Strutt & Parker LLP

7654 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Mrs Katherine Brooker

Dickinson Dees LLP

8129 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Mr B George

Mr Simon Beeby

Strutt & Parker LLP

8469 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Mr Brian Cazaly

Mr Richard Garland

George F White

Sir/Madam

Allendale Estates

M.K. Anand

Schedule of comments and responses

Comments

Council's response

No. The Green Belt should be more carefully safeguarded. We would recommend that Tier 1 & 2 settlements should be reviewed. When and as the plan evolves, and through the Delivery Development Plan, these should be either inset or included in the Green Belt. Tier 3, 4 and 5 settlements should all be included in the Green Belt to allow no new building other than for appropriate land use exemptions.

In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements, which will be discussed with consultees at the next consultation stage. To identify the level of development needed across the County, the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. Not agreed The approach of a default Green Belt outside designated allocations makes a In response to the Core Strategy Issues and mockery of the tiered approach to settlement designation and the assumptions of acceptable Options consultation further work is currently being forms of development in and around them. To reiterate earlier comments, each site should and carried out on the approach to delivery in could be taken on its merits and such draconian, inflexible and cumbersome methods as the settlements, which will be discussed with use of Green Belts in such open rural counties as Northumberland is entirely inappropriate. consultees at the next consultation stage. To NPPF para 85. requires LPA’s when defining Green Belt to be:-  Consistent with the identify the level of development needed across needs of sustainable development  Exclude land which it unnecessary to keep permanently the County, the Council is currently updating its open  Define boundaries clearly using readily recognisable features of permanence. By population modelling in cooperation with retaining a Green Belt to the west of Ponteland these requirements are not being fully met. neighbouring authorities. Para 85. also provides for the inclusion of Safeguarded Land which if a Green Belt is to be retained should form part of the designation of land around Ponteland to ensure carefully considered and necessary growth. It has already been seen in neighbouring Newcastle City Council that they failed to provide sufficient room for sustainable growth and the LPA are now having to consider a second round of substantial Green Belt releases to accommodate predicted growth rates. No tier 3 or 4 settlements should be washed over unless the particular openness of their In response to the Core Strategy Issues and character contributes to the openness of the Green Belt (para 86 of NPPF). Otherwise, washing Options consultation further work is currently being over is unnecessarily restrictive and lacks the flexibility for implementing policies in the plan carried out on the approach to delivery in such as the hierarchy and function of settlement and housing delivery. settlements, which will be discussed with consultees at the next consultation stage. To identify the level of development needed across the County, the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. Not agreed The approach of a default Green Belt outside designated allocations makes a In response to the Core Strategy Issues and mockery of the tiered approach to settlement designation and the assumptions of acceptable Options consultation further work is currently being forms of development in and around them. To reiterate earlier comments, each site should and carried out on the approach to delivery in could be taken on its merits and such draconian, inflexible and cumbersome methods as the settlements, which will be discussed with use of Green Belts in such open rural counties as Northumberland is entirely inappropriate. consultees at the next consultation stage. To NPPF para 85. requires LPA’s when defining Green Belt to be:-  Consistent with the identify the level of development needed across needs of sustainable development  Exclude land which it unnecessary to keep permanently the County, the Council is currently updating its open  Define boundaries clearly using readily recognisable features of permanence. By population modelling in cooperation with extending the Green Belt around Morpeth these requirements are not being fully met. neighbouring authorities.

10578 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Our client strongly believes that the boundaries around Nedderton should be reviewed. Plan (CAZ 01 attached) details where the boundaries should be re-drawn. As stated in answer to Q9 above, Nedderton is a sustainable settlement and is well placed to accommodate additional housing development. The settlement boundaries around Nedderton should be amended to reflect this capability and the availability of land at West Farm. Para 85 of the NPPF states (bullet point 2) that LPA’s should “not include land which is unnecessary to keep permanently open― . It is entirely unnecessary to keep the land (outlined in red on plan ref CAZ 01) permanently open given its availability to provide an appropriate extension to the village. Should the boundary not be amended at this stage, it is highly likely that it will need to be altered at the end of the development plan period, contrary to bullet point 5 of paragraph 85 of the NPPF.

Comment in relation to Nedderton is noted. With regard to the existing Green Belt the Council considers that Green Belt boundaries within the former Wansbeck District were created and tested through the Local Plan process sufficiently recently for there to be no evidence of a need for change.

12336

I agree. We have enough to look after in Ponteland now without making it bigger

Comment noted.

Page 96

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Mr R. Jeffrey

Mr Tom Lowrie

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Mr Richard Garland

George F White

Comment Response ID 10247 An alternative approach would be appropriate

442

Mrs K S Foreman

7224

Mrs Ann Edwards

3039 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Mrs Brenda Turland

6607 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Schedule of comments and responses

Comments

Council's response

Notwithstanding our client’s strong objection in principle to the proposed Green Belt extension, we agree that should a Green Belt adoption be a possibility then Hepscott Park should be excluded from the Green Belt and the settlement boundary should be drawn significantly wide enough to allow for the necessary expansion of the village. This is in line with the principles of the NPPF which states that local planning authorities should satisfy themselves that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered of the end of the development plan period―(paragraph 85, bullet point 5).

Comments in relation to Hepscott Park noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements, which will be discussed with consultees at the next consultation stage. To identify the level of development needed across the County, the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. Comments in relation to Longhorsley are noted.

It is important that the green belt washes over Longhorsley. Any development must meet the stricter criteria that green belt requires. I would wish to see Longhorsley, as a Tier 3 settlement, included in the Green Belt i.e. washed over. Tier 3 and 4 settlements should be agreed as soon as possible to be included in the Green Belt to avoid development going ahead now that would not be considered once the Green Belt is agreed. This would be an injustice to local people. Also Longhorsley should be treated as washed over, to protect the village's green spaces.

This could be a very divisive issue depending on how Longhorsley is treated (as a Tier 3 or 4) and whether it would be inset or 'washed over' and whether the current settlement boundary is adhered to. Longhorsley cannot sustain and does not need a large development. It does not have the infrastructure in place or the facilities needed. I cite the case of Bellway's consideration of building approx 40 houses on the field adjoining Whitegates and Church View. In today's modern age this would most likely lead to an extra 60/80 cars trying to get in and out of Whitegates. This can be a long procedure now at certain times of the day. The land on which they wish to build is extremely wet and once again the drainage now often struggles to keep pace. A large development would not bring benefits to the community. There is no work in the area and Longhorsley would just become part of the commuter belt and not remain a village community. The large Bellway estate built on Church View some years ago brought no benefits to the village. In fact the Village Shop closed down, the Butchers shop closed down and the Post Office has been reduced to a cupboard in the village Hall 3 times a week! We now have a Village shop again and would like to keep it. But more houses do not necessarily bring more to the village. The amenities in Longhorsley should provide for the village not more houses erected to bring in extra business, as this most definitely would not be the case. Conclusion: Longhorsley should be Green Belt (inset) to allow very small infill style building of individual of small houses. No large developers. The current settlement boundary should be adhered to and no building should adjoin or extend beyond this.

Page 97

Comments in relation to Longhorsley are noted. Comments in relation to Longhorsley are noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements across the County and the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required. Such evidence will be used to inform decisions about Green Belt boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. Natural environment and green infrastructure will be protected by other Core Strategy policies. Comments in relation to Longhorsley are noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements across the County and the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required. Such evidence will be used to inform decisions about Green Belt boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Mr John Dowson

Mr John Coxon

Emery Planning Partnership

Mr L Newton (and Family)

Dr Malcolm Bell

Mickley Clients

Schedule of comments and responses

Ms Jo Robison

Smiths Gore

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

7091 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Notwithstanding our above comments, should the Green Belt be extended to Longhorsley, we would strongly object to our client’s site being included within the Green Belt. Paragraph 85 of the NPPF gives clear guidance on defining Green Belt boundaries. It states that the LPA ensure consistency with the local plan strategy for meeting identified requirements for sustainable development. They should also identify in their plans areas of ‘safeguarded land’ between the urban area and the Green Belt, in order to meet longer-term development needs stretching well beyond the plan period, and satisfy themselves that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the development plan period. Therefore Tier 1, 2 and 3 settlements, which from their services and amenities are clearly capable and suitable for accommodating growth, should be excluded from the Green Belt. They should be inset with settlement boundaries drawn flexibly to allow for sustainable growth throughout the plan period, and include provision for development needs well beyond the plan period through the allocation of safeguarded land. Lonhorsley, Morpeth With specific regard to the Green Belt boundaries at Longhorsley, additional land is required in order to meet short, medium and long term housing needs. There is a significant need for open market and affordable housing. We therefore consider that the settlement boundaries should be drawn loosely to allow for future growth, and in particular land to the north of the village should be excluded from the Green Belt. The land to the north of the village is well located to the village centre and associated amenities, and should be excluded from the Green Belt to allow for the sustainable long term growth of the village. In particular our clients site, the land rear of Reivers Gate, Longhorsley (SHLAA ref: 3570) [see attachment part EP1], should be excluded from any future Green Belt boundary, in accordance with paragraph 85 of the NPPF. The site is adjacent to the village boundary and its development would therefore be seen against a background of existing residential development. Furthermore, the site is reasonably flat and its development would not have any significant landscape impact. Its development would not appear as an intrusion into the open countryside and would not interrupt any important views. It should be allocated for residential development as part of any site specific boundary review, or failing that safeguarded for future development.

Comments in relation to Longhorsley noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements, which will be discussed with consultees at the next consultation stage. To identify the level of development needed across the County, the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

902 An alternative approach would be appropriate

The Client agrees Tier 3 and 4 settlements should be reviewed. This policy is supportable if Mickley Square is inset rather than washed over, with the settlement boundary adjusted to include their unused land for future development to help regenerate the settlement. The restrictions to development at the moment are too tight and are stopping potential development in the future.

Comments in relation to Mickley/Mickley Square are noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements, which will be discussed with consultees at the next consultation stage. To inform such discussions and detailed boundary proposals, the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

The scale and function of Mickley/Mickley Square indicates that the settlement should be ‘inset’ within the greenbelt, with an allowance for a greenbelt review. The settlement does not make any significant contribution to the openness of the greenbelt in this location and should not be washed over in accordance with paragraph 86 of the NPPF.

Comments in relation to Mickley/Mickley Square are noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Evidence of future development needs will be required to define Green Belt inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage and, subject to the population modelling results, it is anticipated that only localised review of the Green Belt is likely to be required.

9183

Page 98

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

Mr and Mrs Peter and Lorraine Bartholomew

6450 An alternative approach would be appropriate

We strongly disagree with Ponteland (tier 1) being excluded from greenbelt to allow expansion. Comments in relation to Ponteland are noted. In This would have significant negative impact on the semi-rural character and the wildlife. response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements across the County and the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required. Such evidence will be used to inform decisions about Green Belt boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. Natural environment and wildlife will be protected by other Core Strategy policies.

Mr Alan Varley

6754 An alternative approach would be appropriate

What does the 1st bullet point mean? The concept of exclusion of any settlements from Green Belt is absolutely outrageous, and I have already said that Tier 1 is not appropriate for Ponteland.

Mr and Mrs J and H Mole

9511 An alternative approach would be appropriate

We STRONGLY disagree with Ponteland (tier 1) being excluded from greenbelt to allow Comments in relation to Ponteland are noted. In expansion. This would have a significant negative effect/impact on the semi-rural character and response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options the wildlife. consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements across the County and the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required. Such evidence will be used to inform decisions about Green Belt boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. Natural environment and wildlife will be protected by other Core Strategy policies.

Comments in relation to Ponteland are noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements across the County and the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required. Such evidence will be used to inform decisions about Green Belt boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document.

Ms Julia Austin

11645 An alternative approach would be appropriate

With all our flooding issues and the general concern for the environment and global warming only as a very last resort should any planner consider turning green belt into developed land, once we have lost our heritage we will never get it back. All brown field sites should be developed first, if development is required at all. I would urge the analysts to reconsider their data which led them to believe there was a need to develop Ponteland, most employment is within towns and we should not look to create new towns when money could be better spent sorting out the existing ones. Please do not line the pockets of developers who live nowhere near Ponteland, whose developments will most likely leave us with empty industrial areas and vast housing estates and once the private developers have gone the government will not have the funding to upgrade essential facilities and schools

Comments in relation to Ponteland are noted. Prioritisation of brownfield land is in line with proposed policy and flood risk management will be addressed in the water section of the Core Strategy. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements across the County and the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required. Such evidence will be used to inform decisions about Green Belt boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document.

Ms Deborah Schofield

11725

I am a new resident of Ponteland, but have lived in the area all my life. We have recently paid the high price for our average sized home to enable our children to attend the local schools and to enjoy the village life of Ponteland. The housing development proposals, in particular, if carried through will mean Ponteland is no longer a Village and spoil the wonderful Community we have if we make it too large. The greenbelt should not be reduced. The existing green belt boundary should not be changed. This will protect the character of our community and prevent urban sprawl. Please do not let our Village be extended to the detriment of our Greenbelt.

Comments in relation to Ponteland are noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements across the County and the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required. Such evidence will be used to inform decisions about Green Belt boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 99

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

Mr Edward Dobson

12348

“The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the of Ponteland village and present urban sprawl― You take no notice of the public greed rules

Comments in relation to Ponteland are noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements across the County and the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required. Such evidence will be used to inform decisions about Green Belt boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document.

Mrs J. Colvin

12351

“The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the of Ponteland village and present urban sprawl― AGREED

Comments in relation to Ponteland are noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements across the County and the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required. Such evidence will be used to inform decisions about Green Belt boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. Natural environment and wildlife will be protected by other Core Strategy policies.

Lawrence and Catherine Hall

11587 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Ponteland should be 2 tier and not tier1

Mr and Mrs Steve and Tracey Murray

11664 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Schedule of comments and responses

Comments in relation to Ponteland are noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements, which will be discussed with consultees at the next consultation stage. To identify the level of development needed across the County, the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. People live in Ponteland as they want to live in a relatively small and rural village surrounded by Comments in relation to Ponteland are noted. In green fields and which is not built up or a product of urban or building sprawl. If the residents response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options wanted to live in a larger settlement with more retail units, more housing and less green space consultation further work is currently being carried they would move elsewhere. Ponteland is a beautiful village largely unspoilt over the years. It is out on the approach to delivery in settlements, not an unknown fact that people in other areas regard Ponteland as a beautiful village and area which will be discussed with consultees at the next and a very desirable place to live (as it is). Flooding issues, concern for the environment and consultation stage. To identify the level of global warming should make it a last resort for planners to consider turning green belt into development needed across the County, the developed land. Greenbelt land is a thing of beauty which is highly valued by a community. Council is currently updating its population Once it is lost, it can never be restored. All brown field sites should be developed first if any modelling in cooperation with neighbouring development is really required at all. Most employment is within towns and we do not believe authorities. that any resident of Ponteland would wish for Ponteland to become a town or anything like it. Funding and development could be better spent in improving the existing towns and transport links. Please do not spoil the beauty and uniqueness of Ponteland. The village has been our home all of our lives and whilst we are not totally adverse to change and have accepted the developments that have been built since the 1990’s, the current plans will have a massive and irreversible impact on the whole village and its residents. It is not acceptable for developers who stand to make a huge amount of money to offer ridiculously small gestures such as a new sports pavilion or refurbishing of the library in a bid to gain public support or to embellish their planning applications. Their developments will most likely leave us with more empty industrial areas and huge housing estates which will undermine the character and beauty of the village and which the local infrastructure cannot sustain. Once the private developers have gone, the government (as clearly illustrated now as regards the state of the local facilities), will not have the funding to upgrade essential facilities and schools. New development of Ponteland and Darras Hall shopping centres has been talked about for years but nothing has come to fruition through the Council and planners. Henderson Court however being a private and no doubt very profitable development has been built in a very short space of time as a further housing development in the village in addition to the Lairage, which has already provided a substantial increase in the local housing stock. Both of there developments were however built on existing developed brown field sites.

Page 100

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Lawrence and Audrey Connelly

11674 An alternative approach would be appropriate

A.D. Waugh

11756 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Comments

Council's response

Ponteland/Darras Hall is surrounded by Green Belt land which is highly productive arable and grazing farm land. Removing this from Green Belt status makes no sense. Priority for development within the Green Belt should be given to ‘brownfield’ sites and land not suitable or used for agricultural purposes.

Comments in relation to Ponteland are noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements, which will be discussed with consultees at the next consultation stage. To identify the level of development needed across the County, the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. priority to Brownfield land is in line with proposed policies. People live in Ponteland as they want to live in a relatively small and rural village surrounded by Comments in relation to Ponteland are noted. In green fields and which is not built up or a product of urban or building sprawl. If the residents response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options wanted to live in a larger settlement with more retail units, more housing and less green space consultation further work is currently being carried they would move elsewhere. Ponteland is a beautiful village largely unspoilt over the years. It is out on the approach to delivery in settlements, not an unknown fact that people in other areas regard Ponteland as a beautiful village and area which will be discussed with consultees at the next and a very desirable place to live (as it is). Flooding issues, concern for the environment and consultation stage. To identify the level of global warming should make it a last resort for planners to consider turning green belt into development needed across the County, the developed land. Greenbelt land is a thing of beauty which is highly valued by a community. Council is currently updating its population Once it is lost, it can never be restored. All brown field sites should be developed first if any modelling in cooperation with neighbouring development is really required at all. Most employment is within towns and we do not believe authorities. that any resident of Ponteland would wish for Ponteland to become a town or anything like it. Funding and development could be better spent in improving the existing towns and transport links. Please do not spoil the beauty and uniqueness of Ponteland. The village has been our home all of our lives and whilst we are not totally adverse to change and have accepted the developments that have been built since the 1990’s, the current plans will have a massive and irreversible impact on the whole village and its residents. It is not acceptable for developers who stand to make a huge amount of money to offer ridiculously small gestures such as a new sports pavilion or refurbishing of the library in a bid to gain public support or to embellish their planning applications. Their developments will most likely leave us with more empty industrial areas and huge housing estates which will undermine the character and beauty of the village and which the local infrastructure cannot sustain. Once the private developers have gone, the government (as clearly illustrated now as regards the state o f the local facilities), will not have the funding to upgrade essential facilities and schools. New development of Ponteland and Darras Hall shopping centres has been talked about for years but nothing has come to fruition through the Council and planners. Henderson Court however being a private and no doubt very profitable development has been built in a very short space of time as a further housing development in the village in addition to the Lairage, which has already provided a substantial increase in the local housing stock. Both of there developments were however built on existing developed brown field sites.

Mr R Whinney

Prudhoe Town Council

8282 An alternative approach would be appropriate

The Council considers that there is a strong need to protect the existing Green Belt in the entire Prudhoe Town Council area, that is including all of the town’s settlements (Prudhoe / Mickley Square / West Mickley/ High Mickley / Mount Pleasant) irrespective of their tier classification. The Council is therefore not in favour of excluding Tier 1 and 2 settlements from the Green Belt as suggested in the draft Strategy or otherwise. The Council also notes that the former Prudhoe Hospital is a ‘footprint-only’ brownfield site within the Green Belt, and urges that current undeveloped parts of the site continue to be protected by the Green Belt.

Comments in relation to Prudhoe are noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements, which will be discussed with consultees at the next consultation stage. To inform such discussions and detailed boundary proposals, the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Ms Karen Carins

Stannington Station Residents Association

4166 An alternative approach would be appropriate

We do not agree with the proposed “treatment―of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt. There are exceptions all over this area, where new businesses are already thriving, a new tourist site is near completion with the prospect of encouraging new enterprises to that area. Green Belt deters businesses, the constraints and regulations imposed prove to costly and restrictive for new businesses to enter into. This “treatment―will kill off many of the settlements, with no new housing, no chance of employment, residents will be forced into the towns and only the elderly, retired and wealthy commuters will remain. More shops, Post Offices, farm shops, nurseries, cafes, pubs and craft businesses will have to close. Stannington Parish and the surrounding areas have a huge deficit of affordable houses, Green Belt will worsen this situation.

Comments in relation to Stannington Parish are noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements across the County and the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required. Such evidence will be used to inform decisions about Green Belt boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 101

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Ms Karen Carins

Company / Organisation (if applicable) Stannington Parish Council

Agent Name (if applicable)

JMD Developments

Mr David Brocklehurst

Agent Details (if applicable)

Ward Hadaway

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

6815 An alternative approach would be appropriate

We do not agree with the proposed “treatment―of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt. There are exceptions all over this area, where new businesses are already thriving, a new tourist site is near completion with the prospect of encouraging new enterprises to that area. Green Belt deters businesses, the constraints and regulations imposed prove to costly and restrictive for new businesses to enter into. This “treatment―will kill off many of the settlements, with no new housing, no chance of employment, residents will be forced into the towns and only the elderly, retired and wealthy commuters will remain. More shops, Post Offices, farm shops, nurseries, cafes, pubs and craft businesses will have to close. Stannington Parish and the surrounding areas have a huge deficit of affordable houses, Green Belt will worsen this situation.

Comments in relation to Stannington Parish are noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements across the County and the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required. Such evidence will be used to inform decisions about Green Belt boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document.

9427 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Notwithstanding that our clients object to the proposed Green Belt extension, they also do not agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing or proposed Northumberland Green Belt. . For the reasons set out above in respect to questions 7 and 8, we dispute the evidence that has been produced to assess the ranking of settlements contained in Appendix 1 of the Local Plan. . Our client's view is that all settlements, including the very smallest, should have settlement limits and that there is scope for some new development in all locations with a settlement boundary. If the Green Belt is adopted then the smallest settlements will be washed over and no new development will be permitted without justifying very special circumstances. Our client's view is that this will stagnate a number of smaller settlements where some moderate new housing is essential to sustain services and to enable future generations to live in those settlements. . Our client owns land within Stannington Station which under the current settlement ranking (tier 5) would be included in the Green Belt and washed over and therefore no new building would be permitted other than for appropriate land use exemptions. Stannington Station, like other tier 5 settlements, would benefit from moderate new development particularly given the close proximity to major settlements such as Morpeth. In the absence of any detailed settlement study or assessment of Tier 5 settlements, we cannot support the Local Plan's treatment of Green Belt settlements, particularly those in tier 5. I do not agree that Longhorsley Village should be washed over within the proposed green belt extension. The village should have a suitable area around its perimeter protected from the green belt to accommodate immediate and future development needs and to ensure continued viability of the village school, businesses and post office. . I am sure there is a demand for two bedroom bungalows of a reasonable price to accommodate a growing elderly population. This would allow people wishing to downsize to stay within their village. . To address environmental issues and to allow pedestrian access to the village amenities any future development should be located as close to the village centre as is practicable. This would minimise car use and create an easy living environment, particularly for elderly residents and for children walking to school.

Comments in relation to Stannington Station noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements, which will be discussed with consultees at the next consultation stage. To identify the level of development needed across the County, the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Comments in relation to Ponteland are noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements across the County and the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required. Such evidence will be used to inform decisions about Green Belt boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. Natural environment and wildlife will be protected by other Core Strategy policies.

Mrs Jessie Dowson

7219

Dr Paul Quigley

9430

No. The tiering system should be revised entirely. It is madness to assume that a village such as Ponteland could have its green belt areas entirely revoked. The green belt status should be preserved at all cost as there is little pressure to do otherwise. Northumberland has one of the lowest population densities in the country so a move to redesignate such areas would only benefit cash hungry property speculators and utterly ruin what is good and to be treasured about our towns and villages.

9352 An alternative approach would be appropriate

If we must have green belt extension then all settlements within must be treated as 'inset' with a Comments noted full review of boundaries to provide flexibility for rural business development.

Mr David Feeney

Mitford Parish Council

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 102

Comments in relation to the type of housing mix are addressed in the housing delivery section of the Core Strategy. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements across the County and the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required. Such evidence will be used to inform decisions about Green Belt boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. Natural environment and wildlife will be protected by other Core Strategy policies.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Messrs G and D Brown

Gordon and Anthea Slater

Mr Martin Marsh

Mr Michael Cuncliffe

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Mr Richard Garland

George F White

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

10909 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Notwithstanding our previous comments against the principle of extending the Green Belt, we do not think Previously Developed Land should be washed over by Green Belt. As noted elsewhere in the Core Strategy, there is a distinct shortage of PDL within the Northumberland area. Allocating large amounts of it as Green Belt will effectively further reduce the supply in terms of that available for development, thus necessitating the need for Greenfield land being released. This is contrary to the intentions of National Planning Policy. Whilst we consider the proposed Green Belt extension to be wholly unnecessary, if it were to be adopted, we would suggest that Tranwell Aerodrome be set out of the green belt according to the plan attached to these representations (BRO 01).

Comments on use of previously developed land (PDL) are noted. NPPF paragraph 89 regards the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt apart from a number of exceptions listed as bullet points. The exceptions include: "limited infill or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within than the existing development." The Council's view is that some forms of development may be permitted on PDL, whether it is washed over or inset.

11736 An alternative approach would be appropriate

As residents of Ponteland village we are very concerned about the proposal to build 500 new homes on GREEN BELT land.

Given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform decisions on detailed boundaries the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. However it is unlikely that such modelling would identify a need for such a large number of houses in one area should various developers decide to submit a planning application.

There is no demonstrable need to review the existing Green Belt boundaries.

In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements across the County and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required. Such evidence will be used to inform decisions about Green Belt boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. The existing housing supply, which includes sites with extant planning permission for housing, will also be taken into account.

The expansion of settlements within the green belt is contrary to the principles protecting the green belt, set out in NPPF.

In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements across the County and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required. Such evidence will be used to inform decisions about Green Belt boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. The existing housing supply, which includes sites with extant planning permission for housing, will also be taken into account.

711 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Corbridge Village Trust

Schedule of comments and responses

1682 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Page 103

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Comments

Council's response

4909 An alternative approach would be appropriate

The washing over of settlements is not considered necessary in order to protect the green belt and its purpose. The washing over of settlements which are recognised as villages or towns gives rise to a policy context which prevents development, including simple house extensions, which in no way harm the openness of the green belt. In this context proposals to wash over rather than inset any settlements are not supported.

In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements across the County and the Council is carrying out population modelling to assess the level of development required. Such evidence will be used to inform decisions about Green Belt boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. The existing housing supply, which includes sites with extant planning permission for housing, will also be taken into account.

Mr and Mrs Peter and Lorraine Richardson

1300 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Mr John Dowson

1406 An alternative approach would be appropriate

tier 3 and 4 settlements will need to grow, sooner rather than later, so why not loosen the green In response to the Core Strategy Issues and belt around them now, and let demand for housing in settlements where people want to live Options consultation further work is currently being happen, it will help create much needed jobs carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements across the County and the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required. Such evidence will be used to inform decisions about Green Belt boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There should be a green belt review due to abolition of the structure plan. The proposed green In response to the Core Strategy Issues and belt extension around Longhorsley does not meet the objectives of green belt designation as Options consultation further work is currently being set out in the NPPF Longhorsley village should have a suitable area around its perimiter carried out on the approach to delivery in excluded from green belt restrictions to accommodate the immediate and future development settlements across the County and the Council is needs of an increasing and ageing population.This would also esure continued viability of the updating its population modelling to assess the school, post office and other village businesses and amenities. Any future development should level of development required. Such evidence will be near to village centre allowing pedestrian access to village amenities thereby minimising be used to inform decisions about Green Belt environmental impact of vehiculay traffic. I have seen little reasoned justification to extend the boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent green belt to this area and would suggest that the County Planning Authorities should control delivery or allocations stage Development Plan development within national policy taking into account local factors and needs highlighted by Document. The existing housing supply, which the Parish Council. includes sites with extant planning permission for housing, will also be taken into account.

Mr Robin Wood

Ms Caroline Strugnell

Company / Organisation (if applicable) R&KWood Planning on behalf of various clients

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Mr Robin Wood

R & K Wood Planning LLP

Bellway Homes Limited

Trustees of Stephen Mr Andrew Moss Middleton Will Trust (c/o Ward Hadaway)

Schedule of comments and responses

Wardhadaway

Comment Response ID

2244

Bellway Homes supports the Council's intention to exclude Tier I and 2 settlements from the Green Belt to allow expansion and future development. In this regard we welcome the approach outlined in paragraph 9.i 5 where inset boundaries will be defined to identify safeguarded land between the urban area and the Green Belt to meet longer-term development needs. We look forward to working with the Council in identifying appropriate land for safeguarding. Bellway Homes strongly objects to the approach of including Tier 3 settlements within the Green Belt (i.e. washing over) given the role of these settlements rn providing services and facilities and the need for future development to support and maintain their vitality and the sustainability of these settlements. Tier 3 settlements should be inset with boundaries drawn cognisant of the need for safeguarded land for future development. We look forward to working with the Council in identifying appropriate land for safeguarding through the Delivery Development Plan DPD.

In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements across the County and the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required. Such evidence will be used to inform decisions about Green Belt boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document.

2815 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Following on from the response to question 38, the Trustees consider Tier 3 Settlements should be inset from the proposed Green Belt. There are only a small number of Tier 3 Settlements in the proposed Green Belt and the Trustees consider it essential that the decision be taken at the earliest opportunity that these be inset from the Green Belt. The decision should therefore not be left to review as this Plan or subsequently the Delivery Development Plan document evolves. The specific settlements that the Trustees consider should be inset are Belsay and Whalton to allow for small scale and infill development to come forward. It is noted from the Council's website that the SHLAA will be comprehensively reviewed in 2013 and that this review will offer the opportunity to submit new sites. Sites above 0.4 hectares in area which the Trustees will be submitting for inclusion in the review include land at Manor Close, Whalton and land to the north of Belsay County First School. Plans showing these areas are attached herewith to facilitate discussion as to where development might be accommodated in these settlements such that they can accommodate an appropriate proportion of the housing requirement.

In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements across the County and the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required. Such evidence will be used to inform decisions about Green Belt boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Page 104

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements across the County and the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required. Such evidence will be used to inform decisions about Green Belt boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. The existing housing supply, which includes sites with extant planning permission for housing, will also be taken into account.

Mrs Karen Moses

3947 An alternative approach would be appropriate

There should be NO change to the green belt - the area is teaming with wildlife - red squirrels, hedgehogs, deer, two kinds of owls, pheasants etc; It is an area that provides recreation to many people from both within Ponteland and those who come from Newcastle and beyond to appreciate the open spaces, the wild life, the opportunity to walk dogs, ride horses, run, cycle etc - that resource is available to all and should not be altered; otherwise we will become one huge housing estate merging with Newcastle; in no-ones best interests but especially not for all the wildlife that I feel very strongly about.

Alan Todd

3984 An alternative approach would be appropriate

To totally protect only tier 5 settlements in terms of development, isn't enough. A green belt should mean just that. Tiers 3 and 4 should be washed over as well. Tiers 1 and 2 have the facilities required to allow development expansion, tiers 3,4 and 5 do not.

Mr & Mrs Malcolm & Daphne Morrison

6927

Mrs Sanger

7822 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Mrs Patricia Wilson

Healey Parish Council

Schedule of comments and responses

9659

In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements across the County and the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required. Such evidence will be used to inform decisions about Green Belt boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. Proposal re Tier 3 settlements too vague. Longhorsley should be included in Green Belt to In response to the Core Strategy Issues and allow no further development. Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements across the County and the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required. Such evidence will be used to inform decisions about Green Belt boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. I broadly agree with the treatment of settlements but feel that the classification of settlements In response to the Core Strategy Issues and must be far more robust and permanent if it is to be used to determine something as long-term Options consultation further work is currently being as Green Belt policy. I would also like clarification on whether a whole or partial review of carried out on the approach to delivery in settlement boundaries is intended. settlements across the County and the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required. Such evidence will be used to inform decisions about Green Belt boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage. ..Very concerned about the vagueness of the above statement. We need to know the reasons the Council has for reviewing the Green Belt status of Tier 3 and 4 settlements. These must be set out as criteria for consultation in the Core Strategy since the Green Belt status will impinge on so many other planning policies concerning these settlements.

Page 105

In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements across the County and the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required. Such evidence will be used to inform decisions about Green Belt boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. Natural environment and wildlife will be protected by other Core Strategy policies.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Agent Details (if applicable)

Mrs Kathleen Mavin

Company / Agent Name (if Organisation (if applicable) applicable) Ponteland Town Council

Mr Downer

Blagdon Estates

Mrs Samantha Marlow

Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners

9796

Sir or Madam

Barratt / David Wilson Homes NE

Mr Neil Morton

Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners

10565

Our client supports tier 1 and 2 settlements being excluded from the Green Belt with an inset boundary to allow development or expansion appropriate ensure its development needs are met. We recognise that where expansion may be required, inset boundaries will be defined to identify safeguarded land between the urban area and the Green Belt to meet longer-term development needs, as identified under paragraph 9.15 of the CSIO.

11298

I broadly agree with the treatment of settlements but feel that the classification of settlements must be far more robust and permanent if it is to be used to determine something as long-term as Green Belt policy. I would also like clarification on whether a whole or partial review of settlement boundaries is intended.

9736

Miss Caroline Daisy Cockburn

Mr Martin Robinson

Mrs Patricia Wilson

Mr Martin Robinson

Slaley Parish Council

Schedule of comments and responses

Comment Response ID

Haydon Environmental Consultants

Comments

Council's response

PTC is not clear on the meaning of section 9.14 . It seems to be saying Tier 1 and 2 settlements In response to the Core Strategy Issues and are to be excluded from the Green Belt with an inset boundary etc. and there are concerns if Options consultation further work is currently being that is the case. There is no reference to Ponteland . carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements across the County and the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required. Such evidence will be used to inform decisions about Green Belt boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. Our client supports tier 1 and 2 settlements being excluded from the Green Belt with an inset In response to the Core Strategy Issues and boundary to allow development or expansion appropriate ensure its development needs are Options consultation further work is currently being met. These representations have suggested the reallocation of land to the west of Cramlington carried out on the approach to delivery in to meet the longer term employment and housing needs of the town and suggest that this site settlements across the County and the Council is should be included within the boundary of expansion land appropriate to meet the town’s updating its population modelling to assess the development needs. . In terms of Tier 3 settlements (which includes our clients land at level of development required. Such evidence will Stannington) and Tier 5 (which includes our clients land at St. Mary’s station), we agree be used to inform decisions about Green Belt that the Green Belt boundary should be reviewed as the plan evolves to take into account the boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent development needs of these settlements over the plan period. We therefore suggest that Tier 5 delivery or allocations stage Development Plan settlements are also to be reviewed as the plan evolves, rather than being washed over with a Document. Green Belt allocation as suggested at paragraph 9.14.

4678 An alternative approach would be appropriate

More smaller settlements should be excluded from the Green Belt i.e. not "washed over" to permit opportunities for development. This need not prejudice the principles of the Green Belt in Northumberland.

7877

The PC is very concerned about the vagueness of the above statement. We need to know the reasons the Council has for reviewing the Green Belt status of Tier 3 and 4 settlements. These must be set out as criteria for consultation in the Core Strategy since the Green Belt status will impinge on so many other planning policies concerning these settlements. Slaley is a Tier 3 village and we need this information in order to assess the impact of other parts of the Strategy on our Parish.

Page 106

In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements across the County and the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required. Such evidence will be used to inform decisions about Green Belt boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements across the County and the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required. Such evidence will be used to inform decisions about Green Belt boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements, which will be discussed with consultees at the next consultation stage. To identify the level of development needed across the County, the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements, which will be discussed with consultees at the next consultation stage. To identify the level of development needed across the County, the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Mrs J Graham

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Mr Richard Garland

George F White

Comment Response ID 9899 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Mr Keith Butler

3256 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Mr J M Stanley

12280 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Sir or Madam

Northern Farmers & Landowners Group

Mr Neil Wilson

Glendale Gateway Trust & Wooler Parish Council

Mr Dominic Smith

Persimmon Homes

Mr Malcolm Chainey

Mr Chris Dowson

Schedule of comments and responses

Mr Angus CollingwoodCameron

AECC Consulting

8792

522

Comments

Council's response

Our client fundamentally disagrees with the proposed extension to the Green Belt. (See answers to Q38 and Q39); and consequently does not agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the proposed Northumberland Green Belt.

In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements, which will be discussed with consultees at the next consultation stage. To identify the level of development needed across the County, the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. Each settlement in the Green Belt needs to be considered in its own right and careful In response to the Core Strategy Issues and consideration given to excluding from the Green Belt if the settlement can support Options consultation further work is currently being development. A one size fits all approach of excluding everything in a certain tier is not an carried out on the approach to delivery in appropriate solution. settlements, which will be discussed with consultees at the next consultation stage. To inform such discussions and detailed boundary proposals, the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. Each settlement should be assessed separately. The existing green belt boundary should not In response to the Core Strategy Issues and be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland and prevent urban sprawl. Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements, which will be discussed with consultees at the next consultation stage. To inform such discussions and detailed boundary proposals, the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. See above comments (It is presumed that this means the same as response to Question 40) Is National and Local Green Belt policy will be an inner and outer really needed? I suggest just sticking with the inner. applied equally to all areas designated as Green Belt. However it is considered necessary to leave space around the town that is not covered by Green Belt to allow Morpeth's future development needs to be met. Not relevant to us. No response required.

985 An alternative approach would be appropriate 9501

Reserve comment. As explained above, we concur with the general proposed approach to green belts. However we would like to reserve detailed comment until the inset boundaries are available for inspection. While development in tier 1 & 2 settlements is to be preferred to more rural areas, see answers to Q4 in respect of Hexham and Prudhoe and Q14 in respect of the preferential allocation of brownfield sites for development. Encroachment on the Green Belt is to be avoided at all costs.

4603 An alternative approach would be appropriate

I generally do not believe that the greenbelt should be changed. If greenbelt boundaries are Rejection of the Council's proposed treatment of changed, this should not impact the agreed SHLAA sites as this will have a negative impact on Green Belt settlements is noted. In response to the future housing requirements. Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements across the County and the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required. Such evidence will be used to inform decisions about Green Belt boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document.

Page 107

No response required.

Prioritisation of brownfield sites is in line with proposed policy. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements, which will be discussed with consultees at the next consultation stage. To identify the level of development needed across the County, the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

Dr Toby Osborn

11606 An alternative approach would be appropriate

I would like the council to note my strong objections to council plans for development around the Ponteland area particularly green belt land. The existing green belt boundaries should not be changed in order to prevent "urban sprawl" and change the very nature of the place we have chosen to live. Should such plans materialise I shall object at every opportunity. The existing housing supply is adequate for the area and green belt land should not be compromised.

Rejection of the Council's proposed treatment of Green Belt settlements is noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements across the County and the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required. Such evidence will be used to inform decisions about Green Belt boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. The existing housing supply, which includes sites with extant planning permission for housing, will also be taken into account.

Ms Alison Tulip

11620 An alternative approach would be appropriate

I would like to strongly object to Northumberland County Councils Development Plans and the planned changes to the Green Belt around Ponteland area. Building on Green belt is totally wrong and the existing green belt should not be changed around Ponteland in order to protect the character of ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. I oppose big developers making a quick profit on building large housing estates on green belt land . Ponteland is a unique place to live. The reason so many people do want to live in Ponteland is due to its beautiful surroundings , it beautiful walks and wildlife. What our region needs is affordable sustainable development on brownfield sites and bringing empty homes back into use. There is adequate housing supply in the Ponteland area and there is no need for new development land to be created in the green belt.

Rejection of the Council's proposed treatment of Green Belt settlements is noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements across the County and the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required. Such evidence will be used to inform decisions about Green Belt boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. The existing housing supply, which includes sites with extant planning permission for housing, will also be taken into account.

Janet and Paul Wilcock

11624 An alternative approach would be appropriate

I write to express my concern regarding the proposed new development of Ponteland. Ponteland is a very old village which traditionally was very rural. It was inevitable to a certain extent that this would change over the passage of time, however, the area of Ponteland and Darras Hall still remains semi-rural despite the growth in residential property over the years. The area is now at a stage where it is only just managing to hang on to its status of being a 'highly desirable' area to live. I am sure that the current residents would agree that any further development would have a substantial adverse impact. One of the main concerns regarding additional housing is the infrastructure which would simply not be able to cope with the inevitable increase in traffic. A large majority of households have at least 2 cars - it is frightening to think of the effect this would have on the 'village' of Ponteland at busy times. An attempt to drive along Ponteland Main Street close to 9am and 5pm on a weekday at current population levels is difficult enough. In addition, there are serious considerations attached to schooling and the impact of an increased population. There are many aspects of Ponteland and Darras Hall which require attention. In general, the shopping areas in particular are very run down and not a true reflection of the standard of living in the area. The Sports Centre is a wasted opportunity as, despite it's very poor appearance and facilities, it is actually well used. Rather than a token gesture to the population of Ponteland to improve certain aspects, it would be nice to see money spent on improving what we already have in the area, not only to improve the surroundings for the residents but also to improve profitability for the commercial sector. All in all, the addition of housing as suggested would undoubtedly have a huge impact on all the residents in Ponteland and Darras Hall. Whilst it is certainly not a bad thing to live in a more highly developed area than Ponteland, that is not the choice that the current residents have made and to impose such a thing would be tragic.

Rejection of the Council's proposed treatment of Green Belt settlements is noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements across the County and the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required. Such evidence will be used to inform decisions about Green Belt boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 108

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

Mrs Heather J. Forshaw

11686 An alternative approach would be appropriate

I wish to register my very strong support for the retention and protection of the Green Belt. Once built upon, this great resource is gone forever, reducing quality of life, survival of wildlife and aspects of life in Northumberland which are valued by residents. Development should take place on brownfield sites, protecting unspoilt Green Belt land and improving rundown areas in our towns and villages. Parts of Northumberland are emerging from a post- industrial past - this is a great opportunity to build a sensitively planned environment as a lasting benefit for us all.

Rejection of the Council's proposed treatment of Green Belt settlements is noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements across the County and the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required. Such evidence will be used to inform decisions about Green Belt boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document.

Mr Julian Turner

11732 An alternative approach would be appropriate

I do not agree. There should be NO major developments within the Green Belt. I am concerned there is no specific mention of Ponteland in the document. Also per 9.14 there is no clear definition of the following statement " to allow development or expansion appropriate to the role and function of the settlement". There need to be clear parameters on what this means and most importantly safeguards. For example clear definitions of development scale including numbers of houses and/or units need to be included. No major housing developments should be considered in and around Ponteland in the future for the following reasons:- • Any largescale development would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework which attaches great importance to Green Belts; • The resulting urban sprawl will undermine the Green Belt's characteristic openness and permanence; Ponteland will no longer be a "village" but a "satellite town of greater Newcastle"; • The Green Belt's assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the reuse of brownfield sites; • any major housing development would fail to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt for amenity, recreation and biodiversity; • Future Housing will exacerbate the urban sprawl and loss of village / settlement identity; • The plans will cause irreparable harm to wildlife habitats and put endangered species at risk e.g. bats, red squirrel which are protected by law • The loss of ecologically valuable land; • Housing needs to be matched to specific demands in the local area NOT the wider region else all brownfield sites in the wider region should be considered first on a "matching" principle • No mention of matching infrastructure needs e.g. roads. • Stress on local schools, GP practices and other facilities • Severe traffic congestion; Ponteland village is already heavily congested as is the A696. • Additional housing would be unsustainable and will cause traffic congestion and pollution; • Any housing plans should focus more on brownfield development where sustainable transport links are already in place

Rejection of the Council's proposed treatment of Green Belt settlements is noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements across the County and the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required. Such evidence will be used to inform decisions about Green Belt boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. Environmental issues will be taken into consideration in defining any boundary changes and will also be addressed by Core Strategy environmental and green infrastructure policies.

Mr Duncan Wheeler

12117 An alternative approach would be appropriate

I refer to the above and in particular the possibility of a revision of the existing Green Belt. As no factors have altered since the Green Belt was delineated there is no valid reason for an alteration apart from an opportunistic bid by would be developers to increase the value of the said land. Government ministers are quoted as recently as this weekend as stating that there will be no permission given for any building on Green Belt areas. In the particular case of Ponteland the council will be aware that planning permission has already been granted for a substantial number of house units at the current Police Headquarters site and the former auction site. When this is added to the many houses both established and recent build at varying prices which are available for sale at present there is obviously no pent up demand for the large volumes of extra housing proposed by the would be developers.

Rejection of the Council's proposed treatment of Green Belt settlements is noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements across the County and the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required. Such evidence will be used to inform decisions about Green Belt boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. The existing housing supply, which includes sites with extant planning permission for housing, will also be taken into account.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 109

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Messrs Michie

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Mr Richard Garland

George F White

Mrs Susan Cansdale

Mr Philip Ham

Comment Response ID 10359 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

4941

Ponteland Civic Society

Mr Cheesbrough

Schedule of comments and responses

1493 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

Mr Andrew Moss

Wardhadaway

4002 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

Comments

Council's response

Notwithstanding our client’s strong objection in principle to the proposed Green Belt extension, we agree that Morpeth should be excluded from the Green Belt and the settlement boundary should be drawn significantly wide enough to allow for the necessary expansion of the town and in line with the principles of the NPPF which states that local planning authorities should “satisfy themselves that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered of the end of the development plan period” (paragraph 85, bullet point 5). Once again, we would invite detailed discussions with the LPA over this issue once the position is clarified.

Rejection of the proposed Green Belt extension around Morpeth is noted. However, the council is of the view that the existing boundaries were established and defined through regional, structure plan and local policies, while the extension to the Green Belt around Morpeth was established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5. The council is now going through the process of defining boundaries as described in NPPF paragraph 85. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes and the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Land adjacent to the west of Whitegates Estate is an exception and should not be included in the Green Belt. Robson's Field adjacent to the west of Whitegates Estate in Longhorsley is the remnant of a field which was originally designated as Phase 3 of a comprehensive development requested by the Morpeth Borough Council Planners over 50 years ago. Roads and services were installed which are more than adequate for the provision of all three phases. Phases 1 & 2 have already been completed so it is right that sensitive and good quality development of Robson's Field and the Haining should be allowed because it will form a logical and natural boundary to the south west of the village. This potential site can not be seen from the A697 which passes through Longhorsley village. Ref: 3529 in the recently published SHLAA report this parcel of land was given the green classification with the comment: 'No prohibitive barriers to the development of the site' and is deemed suitable for up to 40 new homes. It will cause no more traffic congestion in the village, and will bring Longhorsley no closer to Morpeth than it already is which is the stated aim of the Greenbelt. Robson's Field is a 'green field' site, (arguably a 'brown field' site since it is the remnant of a field already developed), and for all those reasons, should not be included in the 'green belt'. The Ponteland Civic Society is opposed to any proposals for piecemeal development on Green Belt land outside the inset boundary of Ponteland. Whilst it is appreciated that some areas of Green Belt land may in the future be included within a revised inset boundary, we would oppose any boundary changes which (a) allowed ribbon development east or west of Ponteland adjacent to the A696 or (b) allowed contiguous development around the Town adjacent to the present inset boundary. We consider that an important aspect of the character of Ponteland is that it is embedded into an attractive green countryside. Allowing ribbon development along its main access roads, or allowing development all around its perimeter, or enabling it to gradually join up with Newcastle, would seriously detract from its character and must therefore be prevented. We would also like to see reference made to Conservation Areas, and the importance of them being retained and subject to regular reassessments. (See also Q.104)

Specific reference to sites in Longhorsley are noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements across the County and the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required. Such evidence will be used to inform decisions about Green Belt boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document.

Mr Cheesbrough agrees that it is appropriate that Tier 1 and Tier 2 settlements be excluded from the Green Belt with an inset boundary to allow development or expansion appropriate to role and function of the settlement. As detailed in the response to questions 28, Mr Cheesbrough asks that SHLAA site 3584 (Antonine Walk, land to the rear) be removed from the Green Belt. This is necessary such that Heddon on the Wall can accommodate sufficient levels of development to maintain and strengthen its role as a service centre in accordance with the emerging Development Principles for Tier 2 settlements.

Support is noted as is the Heddon on the Wall site specific reference. Given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Page 110

Support for consideration of some localised Green Belt review around Ponteland is noted along with the Civic Society's concerns with regard to potential piecemeal development. The Civic Society will continue to be consulted on any detailed discussion of potential boundary changes and avoidance of such concerns is in line with proposed policy. To inform decisions on detailed boundaries the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Mr Charles Sample

Company / Agent Name (if Organisation (if applicable) applicable) Welbeck Estates Co. Ltd Mr Neil Robson

Mr & Mrs Carr-Seaman

Atkinson, Newton, Parker, Thirlwell

Mr David Brocklehurst

Land owners at Western Mr Michael Hepburn Way, Darras Hall

Mr Frost

Mrs Deborah Baker

Schedule of comments and responses

Mr David Brocklehurst

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

Ward Hadaway

6518 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

Our client generally agrees with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland green belt and in particular our client considers that the Council must review tier 1 and tier 2 settlements to establish whether green belt boundaries need to be amended for the expansion of those settlements. This includes not only Morpeth but other settlements in south and west Northumberland where it is likely that most development will be directed and where the settlements are most sustainable with access to existing and proposed infrastructure. Our client would support the proposal to identify safeguarded land between the urban area and the Green Belt to meet longer term development needs. Our client would emphasise that they consider the Council must as part of the evidence base prepare a detailed assessment of current green belt and evaluate where the expansion of tier 1 and tier 2 settlements may be appropriate and where green belt boundaries could be amended.

Support is noted. Given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform decisions on detailed boundaries the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Ward Hadaway

6771 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners

7077 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

Our client generally agrees with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt. Our client considers that the Council should however review tier 1 and tier 2 settlements to establish whether Green Belt boundaries need to be amended for the expansion of those settlements. This includes not only Ponteland, Hexham and Prudhoe in the South and West Areas as listed in Question 4 of the Local Plan but also Corbridge. Our client would support the proposal to identify safeguarded land between the urban area and the Green Belt to meet longer term development needs. Our client would make clear that they consider the Council must, as part of the evidence base to justify the Plan through EiP, prepare a detailed assessment of current Green Belt to evaluate where the expansion of tier 1 and tier 2 settlements may be appropriate and where Green Belt boundaries could be amended In principle we agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the Green Belt review.

Support is noted. Given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform decisions on detailed boundaries the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. This will highlight whether settlements over and above those initially listed , such as Corbridge may require localised Green Belt review. Support is noted. Given the length of time since

Ward Hadaway

7936 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

3609 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

Tier 1 and 2 settlements should be given sufficient flexibility to deliver homes in line with the Council’s Strategic Development Options and therefore Green Belt boundaries should not be drawn too tightly.

the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform decisions on detailed boundaries the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. Our client generally agrees with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and Support is noted. Given the length of time since proposed Northumberland Green Belt. Our client considers that the Council should review tier 1 the Green Belt was established, some localised and tier 2 settlements to establish whether Green Belt boundaries need to be amended for the review of the boundaries may be required to expansion of those settlements. This includes not only Morpeth but all tier 1 and 2 settlements accommodate appropriate development required in south east Northumberland where it is likely that most development will be directed and during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. where the settlements are most sustainable with access to existing infrastructure. Our client To inform decisions on detailed boundaries the would support the proposal to identify safeguarded land between the urban area and the Green Council is currently updating its population Belt to meet longer term development needs. Our client would make clear that they consider modelling in cooperation with neighbouring the Council must, as part of the evidence base to justify the Plan through EiP, prepare a authorities. detailed assessment of current Green Belt to evaluate where the expansion of tier 1 and tier 2 settlements may be appropriate and where Green Belt boundaries could be amended When Green Belt status is agreed for the coastline, these can be considered.

Page 111

Support is noted. However the purpose of the Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl from the Tyne and Wear conurbation into south and south east Northumberland. The council is of the view that the existing boundaries were established and defined through regional, structure plan and local policies, while the extension to the Green Belt around Morpeth was established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5. The council is now going through the process of defining boundaries as described in NPPF paragraph 85. The creation of new Green Belt is not considered an appropriate policy approach for the Northumberland coastal area north of the existing Green Belt and would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Jennifer Hall

Company / Organisation (if applicable) Beadnell Parish Council

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Mr Adrian Baker

Mr Tom Warde-Aldam

Nunwick Estate

Mr Chris Offord

Merton College

Mr James Yeoman

Schedule of comments and responses

Savills

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

3831 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

These options need to be considered when green belt status is agreed for the coastline.

Support is noted. However the purpose of the Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl from the Tyne and Wear conurbation into south and south east Northumberland. The council is of the view that the existing boundaries were established and defined through regional, structure plan and local policies, while the extension to the Green Belt around Morpeth was established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5. The council is now going through the process of defining boundaries as described in NPPF paragraph 85. The creation of new Green Belt is not considered an appropriate policy approach for the Northumberland coastal area north of the existing Green Belt and would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

5031 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

These options need to be considered when green belt status is agreed for the coastline.

Support is noted. However the purpose of the Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl from the Tyne and Wear conurbation into south and south east Northumberland. The council is of the view that the existing boundaries were established and defined through regional, structure plan and local policies, while the extension to the Green Belt around Morpeth was established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5. The council is now going through the process of defining boundaries as described in NPPF paragraph 85. The creation of new Green Belt is not considered an appropriate policy approach for the Northumberland coastal area north of the existing Green Belt and would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

2734 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements 7117 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

Agree expansion areas adjoining key settlements should be proposed. In this instance the Hermitage area of Hexham should be considered when the Green Belt boundaries are examined. At the time of reviewing Green Belt boundaries, the NPPF identifies that local authorities should have regard to the intended permanence in the long term, so that such boundaries are capable of enduring beyond the plan period. Local planning authorities should therefore: • not include land which it is unnecessary to keep permanently open; • identify areas of 'safeguarded land' in order to meet longer-term development needs stretching well beyond the plan period; • satisfy themselves that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the development plan period; and • define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent. . Paragraph 9.14 proposes that Tier 1 settlements are to be excluded from the Green Belt with an inset boundary to allow for development or expansion appropriate to the role and function of the settlement. This principle accords with the approach set out by the NPPF and is supported by Merton College. In line with the College's response to Question 38, land identified by this submission is considered highly appropriate to accommodate the growth of Ponteland, through a Green Belt review. The site identified is well contained and positioned close to existing services and facilities. Merton College therefore proposes that a Green Belt review at Ponteland would best be focussed along the Ponteland Road (A696).

Support noted and as are the site specific references.

Page 112

Support noted and the site specific reference to the Ponteland Road (A696) has been noted.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Mr Robert Barnes

Company / Agent Name (if Organisation (if applicable) applicable) Dransfield Properties Ltd Mr Robert Barnes

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comments

Council's response

412 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

The proposed treatment of settlements is appropriate, but for Tier 1 settlements the boundaries Support noted as is reference to southern must be carefully drawn (please see comments at Question 40 seeking to ensure that southern boundary dealt with in Question 40. inner boundary around Morpeth is tightly defined around existing urban area).

Mr David Holden

5686 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

The proposed treatment of settlements is appropriate, but for Tier 1 settlements the boundaries Support noted as is reference to southern must be carefully drawn (please see comments at Question 40 seeking to ensure that southern boundary dealt with in Question 40. inner boundary around Morpeth is tightly defined around existing urban area).

Mr David M Hobson

1388 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

The inset boundary around Ponteland should remain in its current location. Development requirements for Ponteland are consistent with the existing boundary and no expansion of the inset area is either desirable or needed.

Mr Chris Winks

8636 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

Schedule of comments and responses

Planning Prospects Ltd

Comment Response ID

Support noted as is rejection of any proposed localised review of the Green Belt around Ponteland is noted. Given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform decisions on detailed boundaries the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The inset boundary around Ponteland should remain as it is now and should not be enlarged Support noted as is rejection of any proposed anywhere, especially towards the east which will move Ponteland closer to Tyneside and localised review of the Green Belt around destroy its character as a village full of charm. There are no exceptional reasons to change the Ponteland is noted. Given the length of time since current Green Belt boundary around Ponteland. There is no need for any additional housing in the Green Belt was established, some localised Ponteland to be included within this LDP that would require building on any of the Green Belt. review of the boundaries may be required to The current Green Belt is what characterises Ponteland and should remain as it is now – this is accommodate appropriate development required what the local residents want as stated during the recent Lugano, Town Council and NCC during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. public meetings – all 11 workshops from the NCC workshop day on 19 July 2012 stated that the To inform decisions on detailed boundaries the Green Belt should remain completely as it is now. Council is currently updating its population The Green Belt to the east of the village from Clickemin up to the Airport separates Ponteland modelling in cooperation with neighbouring from Newcastle and makes it the separate community that it is now – it should not be eroded authorities. The suggested approaches and should remain as it is now, especially with Newcastle Council considering extending the consideration of previously developed land, wildlife urban sprawl of Newcastle westwards around Woolsington. corridors and flood risk are in line with proposed The Green Belt corridor between Clickemin and Ridgely Drive and the Green Belt Space policy. between Cheviot View and the bridge at Clickemin is a wild life corridor (PC3) as indicated in the current Castle Morpeth Plan. This area should not be developed and should remain as Green Belt and should remain a wild life corridor. There are grave concerns that any development of Green Belt will increase the flooding problem in Ponteland due to the additional run off from all the hard areas. There is not the infrastructure in Ponteland to support any development of the Green Belt and it would be highly unlikely that any levy received from the Community Infrastructure Fund would be enough to improve the infrastructure adequately enough to support any new development. Brownfield sites should be utilised for all future housing requirements. This could include the existing Meadowfield Industrial Estate site if this business park was relocated The County Council should follow the views of the local MP Guy Opperman in that “Ponteland is a wonderful place to live and the reason it is so desirable is because of its beautiful surroundings and village character” – any erosion of the Green Belt around Ponteland will destroy this village full of charm! The County Council should therefore follow Guy Opperman's lead and be strongly against any development on the Green Belt around Ponteland. The County Council should not change any of the current Green Belt boundaries around Ponteland in the development of this LDP, especially to the east of Ponteland Village around Clickemin,

Page 113

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Messrs Laidler

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Mr Richard Garland

George F White

Mr Robert Ramsay

Mr Richard Cansdale

Mr J Walton

Hexham and Northern Marts

Mr David Moore

Mr Tapster

Schedule of comments and responses

Mr John Potts MRTPI

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

9854 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

Notwithstanding our client’s strong objection in principle to the proposed Green Belt extension, we agree that should a Green Belt adoption be a possibility then Pegswood should be excluded from the Green Belt and the settlement boundary should be drawn significantly wide enough to allow for the necessary expansion of the village. This is in line with the principles of the NPPF which states that local planning authorities should “satisfy themselves that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered of the end of the development plan period” (paragraph 85, bullet point 5).

Support noted as is rejection of the proposed Green Belt extension around Morpeth is noted. The suggestion that, if the Green Belt extension is to be pursued, that Pegswood should be inset with sufficient room for development, is in line with proposed policy. However, the council is of the view that the existing boundaries were established and defined through regional, structure plan and local policies, while the extension to the Green Belt around Morpeth was established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5. The council is now going through the process of defining boundaries as described in NPPF paragraph 85. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes and the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Such evidence will be used to define inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

2849 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements 5952 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

This should be followed with a light touch as economic development is vital for Northumberland. Support noted as is the importance of economic development. The demand for housing in Tier 3 settlements such as Longhorsley, be it open market or affordable is beyond doubt so Longhorsley should be inset. Having said that, if at all possible any new developments should still be sited where they are least visible from public roads, to protect Northumberland's wonderful open countryside. In this respect Robson's Field is in a perfect location because it is invisible from either the A697 or any other roads. The sensitive development of this site on the western fringe of the south west corner of the Longhorsley would not bring the village one inch closer to Morpeth.

Support noted as is the Longhorsley site specific reference. The council is of the view that the general extent of the Green Belt around Morpeth has been established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5. That extent would include Longhorsley within the Green Belt and the council is now going through the process of defining boundaries as described in NPPF paragraph 85. To decide how tightly the boundary should be drawn to settlements such as Longhorsley, based on how much development is needed, the Council is currently updating its population modelling for the next stage of the Core Strategy.

3771 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

Hexham, as a Tier 1 settlement, does not at present have enough land outside of the Green Belt to support the necessary growth it requires to maintain its place in the regional hierarchy. Strategic deletions of developable Green Belt sites are required to meet housing demand, in an area with high levels of historic growth. The site north of Intake Way is highly accessible by noncar modes of transport and is enclosed by existing development on three sides, with a mature landscape barrier to the west, which will act as a defensible barrier to the remaining Green Belt land, safeguarding the remainder of the Green Belt from encroachment for the remainder of the Plan period and beyond.

Support noted as is the site specific reference. While recognising the special character of Hexham’s character and setting, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development needed during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. Support noted.

293 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements 615 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

Support noted.

Page 114

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Mrs Joan Tebbutt

Mr Tom Martin

Wylam Parish Council

Mrs Angela Parr

Hepscott Parish Council

Mr John Secker

Mrs Helen Lewis

Mrs Lisa Hamlin

Felton Parish Council

Councillor Jim Scott

Ulgham Parish Council

Mrs Lisa Hamlin

Warkworth Parish Council

Mrs Lisa Hamlin

Acklington Parish Council

Mrs Lisa Hamlin

Thirston Parish Council

Mr Brian Prickett

Mr Jack A Feather

Tritlington & West Chevington Parish Council

Mr Neil Fraser

Dr A. Oliver Staines

Mrs Barbara Martin

Morpeth & District Civic Society

Ms Sue Howie

Northumberland and Newcastle Society

Mrs Zaina Riddle

Mr Frank Harrington

Schedule of comments and responses

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID 1881 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements 2209 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements 2534 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements 4756 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements 4962 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements 5463 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements 5546 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements 5761 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements 5963 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements 6124 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements 6339 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements 6521 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements 6615 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements 6669 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

7190 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements 8470 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements 8948 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements 9538 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

Comments

Council's response

Support noted.

Support noted.

Hepscott Parish Council broadly agree with the treatment of settlements within the Green Belt. Concerning paragraph 9.14, in previous responses to CMBC, we have always maintained that Hepscott Village should be "washed over" in the Green Belt.

Support noted.

Support noted.

Support noted.

Support noted.

Support noted.

Support noted.

Support noted.

Support noted.

Support noted.

Support noted.

Support noted.

The Examination in Public held in March 2004 considered the extent of the Green Belt Support noted. boundary. Arising from that, Recommendation 2.2 states "We recommend that Policy S4 is modified by replacing the words “south of Longhorsley and road C117,......―with the text, “north of Longhorsley...". Under para 2.14, the Inspector comments that existing policies do not guarantee the permanent openness of the land around the village in the same way that a Green Belt would. Para 2.15 states "The Conservation Area only extends to a few streets in the centre of the village and is of only limited value as a designation that could prevent the outward spread of the village. ..... There is no question in the Panel’s minds that Longhorsley should be included within the Green Belt."The Panel reconfirmed the pressure for increased housing development in Longhorsley, and their recommendation addressed that. It would be perverse if the village settlement did not receive the protection afforded by Green Belt. Northern boundary option 2 is preferable. We agree with the Council's general approach.

Support noted.

These are acceptable.

Support noted.

Support noted.

yes

Page 115

Support noted.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Mr Adrian Hinchcliffe

Mr Ian Armstrong

Company / Organisation (if applicable) Bywell Parish Council

Heddon-on-the-Wall Parish Council

Mrs Annie Wright

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID 11458 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements 12672 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements 8016 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

Comments

Council's response

Agree with the general approach, except note our earlier comments about the possible merger Support noted. of tier 2 and tier 3. Support noted.

I broadly agree with the treatment of settlements but feel that the classification of settlements must be far more robust and permanent if it is to be used to determine something as long-term as Green Belt policy. I would also like clarification on whether a whole or partial review of settlement boundaries is intended.

Support noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Evidence of future development needs will be required to define Green Belt inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage and, subject to the population modelling results, it is anticipated that only localised review of the Green Belt is likely to be required.

Mr Stephen Lloyd

8051 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

I broadly agree with the treatment of settlements but feel that the classification of settlements must be far more robust and permanent if it is to be used to determine something as long-term as Green Belt policy. I would also like clarification on whether a whole or partial review of settlement boundaries is intended.

Support noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Evidence of future development needs will be required to define Green Belt inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage and, subject to the population modelling results, it is anticipated that only localised review of the Green Belt is likely to be required.

Miss Eloise Quayle

8202 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

I broadly agree with the treatment of settlements but feel that the classification of settlements must be far more robust and permanent if it is to be used to determine something as long-term as Green Belt policy. I would also like clarification on whether a whole or partial review of settlement boundaries is intended.

Support noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Evidence of future development needs will be required to define Green Belt inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage and, subject to the population modelling results, it is anticipated that only localised review of the Green Belt is likely to be required.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 116

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

Mr Murray Macrae

11151 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

I broadly agree with the treatment of settlements but feel that the classification of settlements must be far more robust and permanent if it is to be used to determine something as long-term as Green Belt policy. I would also like clarification on whether a whole or partial review of settlement boundaries is intended.

Support noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Evidence of future development needs will be required to define Green Belt inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage and, subject to the population modelling results, it is anticipated that only localised review of the Green Belt is likely to be required.

Ms Wendy Mason

11175 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

I broadly agree with the treatment of settlements but feel that the classification of settlements must be far more robust and permanent if it is to be used to determine something as long-term as Green Belt policy. I would also like clarification on whether a whole or partial review of settlement boundaries is intended.

Support noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Evidence of future development needs will be required to define Green Belt inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage and, subject to the population modelling results, it is anticipated that only localised review of the Green Belt is likely to be required.

Dr Emma O'Neill

11208 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

I broadly agree with the treatment of settlements but feel that the classification of settlements must be far more robust and permanent if it is to be used to determine something as long-term as Green Belt policy. I would also like clarification on whether a whole or partial review of settlement boundaries is intended.

Support noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Evidence of future development needs will be required to define Green Belt inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage and, subject to the population modelling results, it is anticipated that only localised review of the Green Belt is likely to be required.

Mrs Judith Quayle

11233 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

I broadly agree with the treatment of settlements but feel that the classification of settlements must be far more robust and permanent if it is to be used to determine something as long-term as Green Belt policy. I would also like clarification on whether a whole or partial review of settlement boundaries is intended.

Support noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Evidence of future development needs will be required to define Green Belt inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage and, subject to the population modelling results, it is anticipated that only localised review of the Green Belt is likely to be required.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 117

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

Mr and Mrs Sill

11247 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

I broadly agree with the treatment of settlements but feel that the classification of settlements must be far more robust and permanent if it is to be used to determine something as long-term as Green Belt policy. I would also like clarification on whether a whole or partial review of settlement boundaries is intended.

Support noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Evidence of future development needs will be required to define Green Belt inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage and, subject to the population modelling results, it is anticipated that only localised review of the Green Belt is likely to be required.

Mrs Trimmings

11261 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

I broadly agree with the treatment of settlements but feel that the classification of settlements must be far more robust and permanent if it is to be used to determine something as long-term as Green Belt policy. I would also like clarification on whether a whole or partial review of settlement boundaries is intended.

Support noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Evidence of future development needs will be required to define Green Belt inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage and, subject to the population modelling results, it is anticipated that only localised review of the Green Belt is likely to be required.

Mrs Jane Cockburn

11284 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

I broadly agree with the treatment of settlements but feel that the classification of settlements must be far more robust and permanent if it is to be used to determine something as long-term as Green Belt policy. I would also like clarification on whether a whole or partial review of settlement boundaries is intended.

Support noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Evidence of future development needs will be required to define Green Belt inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage and, subject to the population modelling results, it is anticipated that only localised review of the Green Belt is likely to be required.

Miss Caroline Daisy Cockburn

11300 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

I broadly agree with the treatment of settlements but feel that the classification of settlements must be far more robust and permanent if it is to be used to determine something as long-term as Green Belt policy. I would also like clarification on whether a whole or partial review of settlement boundaries is intended.

Support noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Evidence of future development needs will be required to define Green Belt inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage and, subject to the population modelling results, it is anticipated that only localised review of the Green Belt is likely to be required.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 118

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

Miss Louisa Traquair Cockburn

11315 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

I broadly agree with the treatment of settlements but feel that the classification of settlements must be far more robust and permanent if it is to be used to determine something as long-term as Green Belt policy. I would also like clarification on whether a whole or partial review of settlement boundaries is intended.

Support noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Evidence of future development needs will be required to define Green Belt inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage and, subject to the population modelling results, it is anticipated that only localised review of the Green Belt is likely to be required.

Mr Frank William Cockburn

11331 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

I broadly agree with the treatment of settlements but feel that the classification of settlements must be far more robust and permanent if it is to be used to determine something as long-term as Green Belt policy. I would also like clarification on whether a whole or partial review of settlement boundaries is intended.

Support noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Evidence of future development needs will be required to define Green Belt inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage and, subject to the population modelling results, it is anticipated that only localised review of the Green Belt is likely to be required.

Mrs Clare Kendall

11369 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

I broadly agree with the treatment of settlements but feel that the classification of settlements must be far more robust and permanent if it is to be used to determine something as long-term as Green Belt policy. I would also like clarification on whether a whole or partial review of settlement boundaries is intended.

Support noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Evidence of future development needs will be required to define Green Belt inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage and, subject to the population modelling results, it is anticipated that only localised review of the Green Belt is likely to be required.

Mrs Mary Murray

11383 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

I broadly agree with the treatment of settlements but feel that the classification of settlements must be far more robust and permanent if it is to be used to determine something as long-term as Green Belt policy. I would also like clarification on whether a whole or partial review of settlement boundaries is intended.

Support noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Evidence of future development needs will be required to define Green Belt inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage and, subject to the population modelling results, it is anticipated that only localised review of the Green Belt is likely to be required.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 119

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

Mr David William Lindley Penn

11406 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

I broadly agree with the treatment of settlements but feel that the classification of settlements must be far more robust and permanent if it is to be used to determine something as long-term as Green Belt policy. I would also like clarification on whether a whole or partial review of settlement boundaries is intended.

Support noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Evidence of future development needs will be required to define Green Belt inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage and, subject to the population modelling results, it is anticipated that only localised review of the Green Belt is likely to be required.

Mrs Gay Penn

11419 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

I broadly agree with the treatment of settlements but feel that the classification of settlements must be far more robust and permanent if it is to be used to determine something as long-term as Green Belt policy. I would also like clarification on whether a whole or partial review of settlement boundaries is intended.

Support noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Evidence of future development needs will be required to define Green Belt inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage and, subject to the population modelling results, it is anticipated that only localised review of the Green Belt is likely to be required.

Mr David Richardson

11438 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

I broadly agree with the treatment of settlements but feel that the classification of settlements must be far more robust and permanent if it is to be used to determine something as long-term as Green Belt policy. I would also like clarification on whether a whole or partial review of settlement boundaries is intended.

Support noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Evidence of future development needs will be required to define Green Belt inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage and, subject to the population modelling results, it is anticipated that only localised review of the Green Belt is likely to be required.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 120

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Strachan

Company / Organisation (if applicable) Clifton Residents Association

Agent Name (if applicable)

Lugano Developments Ltd

Mr Richard Newsome

Schedule of comments and responses

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID 4121 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

GVA

5985 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

Comments

Council's response

The washing over of Clifton in the Green Belt will serve to protect against harmful development, Support noted. Appropriate land use exceptions but, in view of specific responses about the two commercial premises in the settlement, Clifton are those defined in National Planning Policy residents would need to know more about the meaning of "appropriate land use exemptions" in Framework (NPPF) paragraphs 89 & 90. paragraph 9.14 above. 89. A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt. Exceptions to this are: - buildings for agriculture and forestry; - provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and for cemeteries, as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it; - the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building; - the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces; - limited infilling in villages, and limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the Local Plan; or - limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development. 90. Certain other forms of development are also Lugano Developments Ltd supports the continued exclusion of Tier 1 and Tier 2 settlements Support noted. Given the length of time since the from the Green Belt with an inset boundary to allow development or expansion appropriate to Green Belt was established, some localised review the role and function of the settlement. We would reiterate that the extent of these inset maps of the boundaries may be required to cannot be established until the extent and location of required site allocations is known. accommodate appropriate development required Therefore, we would urge the Council to integrate its site allocations into the preparation of the during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. Development Plan at the earliest opportunity to help define the settlement boundaries. Without The Council is currently updating its population these boundaries being based on such information they may be unsound and not accord with modelling in cooperation with neighbouring paragraph 182 of the National Planning Policy Framework. authorities, which will : • Help to ensure that the plan will meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements • That it is the most appropriate strategy based on proportionate evidence • That it can be delivered over and beyond it period , based on joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities • And that it can deliver sustainable development in accordance with the NPPF. This modelling and continued consultation with local people and developers through the preparation of the Core Strategy will allow subsequent delivery documents to define the details of localised review of Green Belt boundaries, in due course.

Page 121

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Miss G Turner

Company / Organisation (if applicable) Morpeth Town Council

Dr Nic Best

CPRE Northumberland

5402 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

CPRE broadly agrees with the treatment of settlements – but as noted in the comments on the designation of the Tier hierarchy (Q7), the classification of settlements is problematic, contentious and non-permanent. The characterisation of settlements must be far more robust if it is to be used to determine something as longterm as Green Belt policy. We would like clarification on whether a whole or partial review of settlement boundaries is intended. We recognise that this will certainly be necessary for newly ‘inset’ settlements.

Support noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Evidence of future development needs will be required to define Green Belt inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage and, subject to the population modelling results, it is anticipated that only localised review of the Green Belt is likely to be required.

Mr Lester Sher

Action for Rural Morpeth ARM

11016 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

ARM broadly agrees with the treatment of settlements but feel that the classification of settlements must be far more robust and permanent if it is to be used to determine something as long-term as Green Belt policy. We would also like clarification on whether a whole or partial review of settlement boundaries is intended.

Support noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Evidence of future development needs will be required to define Green Belt inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage and, subject to the population modelling results, it is anticipated that only localised review of the Green Belt is likely to be required.

11294 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

ARM broadly agrees with the treatment of settlements but feel that the classification of settlements must be far more robust and permanent if it is to be used to determine something as long-term as Green Belt policy. We would also like clarification on whether a whole or partial review of settlement boundaries is intended.

Support noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Evidence of future development needs will be required to define Green Belt inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage and, subject to the population modelling results, it is anticipated that only localised review of the Green Belt is likely to be required.

Mrs Linda Sher

Schedule of comments and responses

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

1214 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

MTC broadly agrees with the treatment of settlements but would like clarification on whether a whole or partial review of settlement boundaries is intended alongside this. This will be necessary for newly ‘inset’ settlements.

Support noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Evidence of future development needs will be required to define Green Belt inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage and, subject to the population modelling results, it is anticipated that only localised review of the Green Belt is likely to be required.

Page 122

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Mr Joel Lester Sher

Mr Chris Offord

Comment Response ID 11329 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

Chris Offord Consultancy

Mr and Mrs Brewis

3047 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements Dr Malcolm Bell

Mr Peter Walton

881 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements 5891 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

Mr and Mrs Trevor Charlton

Mrs Diana Carney

Agent Details (if applicable)

11581

Wylam Parish Council

Mr John Harrison

Schedule of comments and responses

8100 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements 10322 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

Comments

Council's response

ARM broadly agrees with the treatment of settlements but feel that the classification of settlements must be far more robust and permanent if it is to be used to determine something as long-term as Green Belt policy. We would also like clarification on whether a whole or partial review of settlement boundaries is intended.

Support noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation the Council is updating its population modelling to assess the level of development required across the County. Evidence of future development needs will be required to define Green Belt inset boundaries via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage and, subject to the population modelling results, it is anticipated that only localised review of the Green Belt is likely to be required.

I generally agree but feel Heddon on the Wall should be a Tier 3 settlement and would therefore fit into bullet point 2 of paragraph 9.14.

Support noted. Reference to Heddon on the Wall is dealt with in NCC response to Question 9.

Yes. Tier One and Two settlements should be a priority for the exclusion from the Green Belt and continue to be inset in order to be able to fulfil the development principles set out in table 5.1. Further to this, the inset boundary should recognise that appropriate development will need to take place, and not be as restrictive as the existing boundary. Hexham is a Tier 1 settlement. The area to the west including the Leazes and Shaws provides great amenity value to the town. It has long been established as Green Belt and should be retained as is.

Support noted. The comment in relation to development principles is in line with proposed policy.

The character of Ponteland Village should be protected and this would not happen if the existing green belt boundary was changed. All this would do is create urban sprawl.

Support noted. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Agree in principle but the Parish Council woul wish to be consulted on any future changes proposed for Wylam and neighbouring communities.

Support noted. The Parish Council will be consulted at all stages of the Core Strategy and on any future changes.

Yes, provided exiting green belt around Ponteland is not compromised.

Support noted. The view Green Belt around Ponteland should not be compromised is also noted however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform decisions on detailed boundaries the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Page 123

Support noted. The Council recognises the special character of Hexham and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

Mr Alan Etchells

5151 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

Longhorsley should be washed-over but we do need housing for older people.

Support noted. The view that Longhorsley should be washed over is also noted however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform decisions on detailed boundaries the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. Work on housing need will help to identify areas that require housing for older people.

Mrs Jan Chisholm

7550 Agree with the proposed treatment of settlements

Yes and included in Green Belt - "washed over" [assumed Longhorsley].

Support noted. The view that Longhorsley should be washed over is also noted however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform decisions on detailed boundaries the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Firstly and fundamentally, we disagree that there is a need for the extension of the existing Green Belt for the reasons set out above. Secondly, the proposed system of treating settlements within the Green Belt cannot be commented upon in detail until is clarified which settlements are proposed to be set out. Thirdly, the proposed system, including blanket coverage of all sites lower in the tiers than tiers 3 or 4 is too rigid and does not take account of individual sites and circumstances. For instance, the area around St Mary's Hospital at Stannington will during the plan period, become a much larger settlement in its own right, with commercial, residential and community facilities. It would seem sensible to set this out of the Green Belt along with associated land to the north, allowing for future development needs over and beyond the plan period. We would invite detailed comment in this regard with the council once the proposed treatment of the Green Belt is clarified.

The council is of the view that the extension to the Green Belt around Morpeth has been established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5. The council is now going through the process of defining boundaries as described in NPPF paragraph 85.The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) does not contain policy for the designation of ‘major developed sites’ as set out in the earlier and now superseded ‘Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green Belts’ (PPG2). Under PPG2 the former St Mary’s Hospital site would have been proposed as a new major developed site washed over by the Green Belt. Because major developed sites are no longer recognised in national policy the St Mary's site, which has extant planning permission for mixed use development, would either have an inset boundary defined around it, as if it was an existing settlement, or washed over to allow only the approved development to be constructed. To inform such discussions and detailed boundary proposals, the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

The Corbridge Village Trust is a registered charity with some 200 members whose primary purpose is to seek to conserve and enhance the historic heritage, character, environmental quality and setting of the Corbridge Conservation Area. We are not anti-development but believe that the maintenance of the Green Belt and the current settlement boundaries around Corbridge is vital to maintaining its character and setting. Therefore we believe that the available development land within these boundaries should only be used to meet the existing and future needs of the village and that consequently planning policy should not encourage the future expansion of the settlement. In our view there needs to a greater encouragement to providing social and low cost housing to meet real housing needs within the village envelope.

The Council recognises the special character of Corbridge and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Mr M. Moore

Mr Michael Cuncliffe

Mr Richard Garland

Corbridge Village Trust

Schedule of comments and responses

George F White

10975 An alternative approach would be appropriate

1632

Page 124

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Mr & Mrs Sue & Dave Hulley

12161

Mrs Sandra A Woodmass

12271

Mrs Sarah Kitchen

12311

Ms Karen Overbury

12331

G. Cowell

12354

B M Wyllie

12390

Schedule of comments and responses

Comments

Council's response

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. Ponteland should be protected from sprawl. we choose to live in this semi rural area and do not expect all the city facilities ie. metro

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The existing green belt boundary should be retained to prevent urban sprawl and retain the The Council recognises the special character of village identity. We should protect wildlife habitats and not put endangered species to risk. Corbridge and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. The green belt is important to protect natural Corbridge and its setting however, given the length environment, for biodiversity to mantaincharachter of the Ponteland area to stop urban sprawl of time since the Green Belt was established, small villages should remain seperate + individual eg medburn should not be subsumed into some localised review of the boundaries may be Ponteland. I feel it is inappropriate that the developers can buy green belt speculatively then required to accommodate appropriate pressurise to build on it against the community's wishes. development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. Ponteland is the gateway to rural Northumberland. Corbridge and its setting however, given the length It has a charm and character of its own and this should be retained. of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. The Green Belt has already been abused I think it Corbridge and its setting however, given the length should be left alone. of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. Quite right. The green belt was supposedly Corbridge and its setting however, given the length inviolate and should remain so. The Ponteland Town Council has already produced a of time since the Green Belt was established, document on the future planning of Ponteland which should provide adequate guidance for the some localised review of the boundaries may be County Council required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Page 125

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

The Council recognises the special character of Corbridge and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Corbridge and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Corbridge and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Corbridge and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Corbridge and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Ms Val Wilson

12393

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. The plans I have seen will make Ponteland an extension of Newcastle and totally spoil the village.

Mr David Hann

12480

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. The reasons for establishing the existing green belt boundaries remain valid, indeed are more compelling in light of growing concerns for wildlife protection and over global warming caused by air pollution. The green belt boundary must not be changed.

Mr & Mrs Joyce & Harry Parvin

12569

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. Ponteland is a low -lying area and a considerable amount of that land eg Click 'em site is on a flood plain. Some of the property on this flood plainhas already been flooded. Additional building construction will increase this risk.

Mr Chris Lillico

12600

The existing Green Belt boundaries were established to prevent urban sprawl and the merging of separate communities. Ponteland is most at risk from the expansion of Newcastle out of to the Northumberland boundary and therefore it is vital that the Green Belt areas in and around the village are retained. We currently have a delicate balance of dwellings and wildlife living side by side which would be lost forever with additional building on Green Belt land. With the additional issues of flooding and traffic congestion we simply do not need further development.

Ms Lesley Lillico

12603

The existing Green Belt boundaries were established to prevent urban sprawl and the merging of separate communities. Ponteland is most at risk from the expansion of Newcastle out of to the Northumberland boundary and therefore it is vital that the Green Belt areas in and around the village are retained. We currently have a delicate balance of dwellings and wildlife living side by side which would be lost forever with additional building on Green Belt land. With the additional issues of flooding and traffic congestion we simply do not need further development.

Ms Holly Sanderson Lillico

12606

The existing Green Belt boundaries were established to prevent urban sprawl and the merging of separate communities. Ponteland is most at risk from the expansion of Newcastle out of to the Northumberland boundary and therefore it is vital that the Green Belt areas in and around the village are retained. We currently have a delicate balance of dwellings and wildlife living side by side which would be lost forever with additional building on Green Belt land. With the additional issues of flooding and traffic congestion we simply do not need further development.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 126

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Mr David M Hobson

1968 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Mr William Moses

3936 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Mr & Mrs Tony & Lesley Noble

6211 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Mrs Linda Varley

6902 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Schedule of comments and responses

Comments

Council's response

The inset boundary around Ponteland should remain in its current location. Development requirements for Ponteland are consistent with the existing boundary and no expansion of the inset area is either desirable or needed. The long established Green Belt surrounding Ponteland and Darras Hall has protected the character of the village maintained in a rural setting and is fundamental to the character of the settlements. The Green Belt is also under threat to the east and south east from proposals by Newcastle City Council. It is imperative that the whole of the green belt around Ponteland and Darras Hall estate is protected within its existing boundaries without any encroachment. Encroachment into this vulnerable resource will be result in it being lost forever and can never be recovered. The rural surroundings to Ponteland and Darras Hall are a valuable resource for maintaining the ecology of the fringes of the village where the agricultural environment abuts large mature gardens. The wide variety of birds, animals and plants which are observed in existing gardens on the edges of the village is testimony to the importance of maintaining these edges. The rural land near to the village provides many opportunities for recreation and the Town Council publishes a series of 6 pamphlets describing walks around the village, 5 of which are in rural settings. The landscape views from roads around the village, especially from Callerton Lane, Rotary Way, Berwick Hill Road, North Road and Stamfordham Road provide long views across fields towards trees and mature gardens at some distance towards the edges of the village. These views are a fundamental aspect of Ponteland and should not be eroded by developments (even small scale) outside the existing inset boundary. Question 40 Add Comments for Question 40 View Comments (43) for Question 40 Is the proposed approach to defining the inner Morpeth Green Belt boundary appropriate? Treatment of Green Belt settlements Add Comments for Treatment of Green Belt settlementsView Comments (8) for Treatment of Green Belt settlementsThese comments are for this section Treatment of Green Belt settlements Mr William Moses (ID: 667480) PDF Please provide general comments on this section of the document here: There should be no change to Green Belt boundaries. In the case of Ponteland the eventual construction of the bypass will of course remove traffic concerns and free up sites with potential for development but a great deal of care needs to be taken to preserve the unique character of the villaged which is what makes it such an attractive place to live and work. This is already seen to be under threat by premature "consultations" by decvelopers One of the charms of the village is swathe of farmland which runs along the Fairney Burn and is a living link to Ponteland's agricultural past. This cuts through the post war frontages onto the A696 which (and unlike Darras Hall), with only a couple of exceptions retain the original low walls and hedgerows along their whole length. Once derided, a key aim for the United Kingdom's post-War planning system was to halt such "Ribbon Development" but now in many areas the pleasing suburban character of such development is being recognised by designation as a Conservation Area

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

The inset boundary around Ponteland should remain in its current location. No expansion of the The Council recognises the special character of inset area is either desired or needed. Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. Ponteland's Green Belt must be protected! The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Page 127

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Mr Steve Walker

10029

Mr Michael Shield

10042

Eleanor Kenyon

10060

I most strongly urge that the Ponteland area Green Belt boundary should not be changed, in order the preserve the character of the settlement and prevent the urban sprawl noted in 5 above.

Mr Peter Kenyon

10079

I most strongly urge that the Ponteland area Green Belt boundary should not be changed, in order the preserve the character of the settlement and prevent the urban sprawl noted in 5 above.

Schedule of comments and responses

Council's response

The existing Green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland and prevent urban sprawl. Regards

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The existing green belt boundary should NOT be changed, in order to protect the character of The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. As mentioned above, Ponteland is a viilage and Ponteland and its setting however, given the not a town. By shifting the green belt boundary unnecessary growth is encouraged which would length of time since the Green Belt was change the character of the area. It is important to prevent urban sprawl. We are already close established, some localised review of the to Newcastle and any changes to Ponteland's green belt, coupled with Newcastle's boundaries may be required to accommodate development proposals would see the two communities creeping forever closer together. appropriate development required during and Ponteland's road infrastructure cannot cope at present. Those who live here regularly witness beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform the large traffic queues on the A696, through the village and out towards the airport. The such decisions the Council is currently updating its development proposals put forward by, for example Banks Group, would merely compound this population modelling in cooperation with issue. The various development group proposals, clouded by promises of infrastructure neighbouring authorities. investment, are nothing more than large money making schemes to boost their profits. They show no real consideration for the future of Ponteland or its residents.

Page 128

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Mr Anthony Butler

11575

Mr and Mrs C and A Jackson

11590

Mr John Kirton

11599 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Schedule of comments and responses

Comments

Council's response

With regards to the proposals to develop properties on green belt land in Ponteland to the south and north of Cheviot View, I feel strongly that Ponteland should be treated as a Tier 2 settlement. I have received written correspondence from Banks Property, and also attended a presentation by Banks in Ponteland Leisure Centre on 16th August 2012. I was initially shocked at the proposed size of this development, showing its full foot print on land presently allocated as GREEN BELT. As I understand it there is a proposal for 500 properties to be erected on this Green Belt site. As a resident of Ponteland for over 20 years I fully appreciate its tranquillity and village atmosphere, surrounded by beautiful countryside. This appears to be at risk with the stroke of a pen?? My main concerns are three fold:- FLOOD RISK – My house and many others sit on the flood plain of Ponteland; I have already witnessed two serious incidents of flooding on the Eland Haugh and Eland Mews estates. The estate is surrounded by the River Pont and a burn which runs by the side of the Sports centre playing fields/Ponteland Golf club. Both have flooded in recent years. By placing even more concrete on the Green Belt which would otherwise help soak up the excess rainfall, together with 500 houses drainage systems, seems a recipe for disaster. I note in the Issues & Options consultation document at 18.1 “It is important when planning for development to avoid areas at greater risk of flooding. To adopt a ‘sequential’ approach directing developments to areas at lower risk of flooding, particularly due to the predicted increased risk of flooding resulting from climate change.― At 18.7 “Flood risk management policy which would – ensure that…..development is safe and does not increase flood risk elsewhere.―When further flooding occurs as a result of this development, who would my insurer pursue for compensation? I presume Northumberland County Council would be held responsible should planning permission be given for building on green belt land adjacent to a flood plain. LOSS OF GREEN BELT – Once this land is built on; it is lost for ever and creates a precedent for the future. This also adds to the possibility of even more green belt being lost to future developments. TRAFFIC – Assuming 500 houses are built there is the potential for a further 1000+ motor vehicles on the roads of Ponteland. The A696, is already at bursting point between 0800-0900 & 1500-1600 daily to cope with school and Police Headquarters traffic. How would the roads cope with possibly say 500 more vehicles being used to transport children to their respective schools? These are my three main concerns, however, if you calculate possibly 1000 extra school children plus their parents, how would the infrastructure cope, i.e. extra school places, Medical centres etc. Ponteland already The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. There appears little appetite to adjust the boundary around the settlement of Darras Hall, which begs the question; if additional homes are required, why is that area not also being considered. Recent meetings have also highlighted serious concerns over the planning teams ability to even understand the current footprint of homes within the Ponteland area and that the current proposals call for building onto areas already designated a 'flood risk'. The proposals call for building on areas that in 2000 were regarded by the Environment Agency as having a 1/100 year chance of flooding, yet in the past 12 years have suffered serious flooding on three separate occasions. The Environment Agency nationwide is calling for the retention of green belt and 'soak areas' to aid better flood management. This begs the question of the affect on flooding if the flood plain areas are concreted over. The proposal for the by-pass also used maps that were out of date and did not reflect the current footprint of the village. This begs the question over what else has been missed or what agencies have and have not been consulted to ensure the proposals are not fundamentally flawed from other perspectives. It is essential that the strategy and options consultation consider the issues holistically and not seek to address problems caused by the ill conceived solutions to problems that themselves are only caused by the ill conceived and unclear motives at the root of these proposals. In order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl the existing green belt boundary should not be changed

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. Flood risk management issues are addressed in the water section of the Core Strategy.

Page 129

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Mrs Ailsa Landreth

11604 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Ms Anne Phillips

11610

Mr Paul Schofield

11615

Mr Trevor Swann

11618

Trevor and Carole Walton

11623 An alternative approach would be appropriate

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect and maintain the unique character of Ponteland village and prevent yet another bad example of urban sprawl.

Mr Ian Mudie

11627 An alternative approach would be appropriate

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Schedule of comments and responses

Council's response

The excisiting green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. Ponteland is being attacked from all sides and the infrastructure will not be able to cope. The Council recognises the special character of Roads, health services, schools, drainage are already stretched to the limit. All of a sudden we Ponteland and its setting however, given the might have a ring road - how fortuitous!! After all these years of being told one was not length of time since the Green Belt was necessary. To accommodate Ponteland Garden Village it could become viable!!! Horror was established, some localised review of the shown at the 457 houses to be built on the Police Headquarters. What effect will these new boundaries may be required to accommodate residents have on the village? We now have houses being proposed at Clickemin and also the appropriate development required during and Lugano site. Please give a thought for the residents. My residency in this beautiful little village beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform began in 1971 and there has obviously been change over the years, but these new such decisions the Council is currently updating its developments will be the death of Ponteland. population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The existing green belt boundary should not be changed. This will protect the character of our The Council recognises the special character of community and prevent urban sprawl. Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Green Belt must be preserved in its current state or it will be forever lost. Tinkering with The Council recognises the special character of Green Belt boundaries is not only deceitful but it is also treating the community cheaply, Ponteland and its setting however, given the cheating generations to come of their right for green space around the village. Ponteland is a length of time since the Green Belt was village, not a city suburb like Gosforth is to Newcastle. It is a village not a town and it has with established, some localised review of the quite intensive housing already. Importantly, it has a rural feel with fields and woodland boundaries may be required to accommodate interspersed with housing. Currently, cyclists and diners visit the village to use its amenities appropriate development required during and alongside villagers ...it is the village / rural feel that is attractive to visitors. Any changes to the beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform Green Belt boundaries will will trigger building development to 'fill-in' much of the green space such decisions the Council is currently updating its on the approach to the village. This in turn will create traffic problems and serve to destroy the population modelling in cooperation with village character and its current, successful functions. I have very strong views that proposals neighbouring authorities. to change the green belt boundary are usually couched in self-interest, greed and a gross neglect of public duties to preserve the rights and wishes of local residents. Green Belt land must be preserved in its current state!

Page 130

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Andrea Hudson

11630 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Keith Morris

11633 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Alan and Sylvia Wilson

11635 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Claire and George Robson

11638 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Muriel Sobo

11641 An alternative approach would be appropriate

The settlement of Ponteland is defined by the Green Belt which has been in place for more than 50 years. There is an optimum size for such a place and attempts to expand it to accommodate business parks, more retail development or particularly more housing will inevitably result in the loss of the uniqueness and desirability which attracts both Geordies and people who move to Tyneside. Its attraction for most is that it is not Newcastle! Don’t mess with the Green Belt. Once breached it will not be possible to preserve the boundaries.

Ms June Atkinson

11648 An alternative approach would be appropriate

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed. We must protect the character of Ponteland village and resist all attempts at urban sprawl.

Schedule of comments and responses

Council's response

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. Our green belt should be protected and not sacrificed for the sake of greed. If the proposed changes do proceed they will result in loss of open space and wildlife habitats, and will destroy the character of the village. The increase in housing and corresponding increase in traffic will add to the already considerable congestion into and out of the village at peak times.

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The existing green belt boundary should not be changed. I thought councils were supposed to The Council recognises the special character of protect green belt wherever possible? We need to protect the character of Ponteland village Ponteland and its setting however, given the and prevent urban sprawl. Rotary way was originally built to reduce congestion in the village in length of time since the Green Belt was the form of a bypass – now it is being used as an entry point to add to the congestion. Please established, some localised review of the stop this decision. boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The existing green belt boundary should not be changed. There is adequate housing supply in The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland area and there is no need for new development land to be created in the green belt. Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. We get the impression that Northumberland Ponteland and its setting however, given the County Council are happy to change the character of Ponteland from being a village to length of time since the Green Belt was converting it into a town. You are going to destroy wild Life, bring more crime into the area, established, some localised review of the undermine the cost of property here and destroy the peaceful existence which Ponteland boundaries may be required to accommodate residents now have. It begs the question whether any of the numerous responses you will have appropriate development required during and received from residents disagreeing with these new plans will be heard because no doubt beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform agreements will have already have been made with the developers and back handers such decisions the Council is currently updating its exchanged to push forward these disgraceful proposals which will only benefit the scrupulous population modelling in cooperation with people involved in these proposals and bring only misery to Ponteland residents. neighbouring authorities.

Page 131

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Ian & Julie Gallon

11655

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr & Mrs Eardley

11656 An alternative approach would be appropriate

The existing green belt boundary must not be changed so that the character of Ponteland village remains unchanged and urban sprawl is prevented.

David and Joan Usher

11661 An alternative approach would be appropriate

The exisiting green belt boundary should not be changed UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES in order to protect the character of Ponteland Village and prevent unneccesary urban sprawl.

Richard and Carole Ann Bailes

11667

the existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl

Mr Martin Bohill

11670

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl

Mr and Mrs D and C Burbeck

11677 An alternative approach would be appropriate

The existing Green Belt boundary around Ponteland should not be changed in order to protect the existing character of Ponteland Village and prevent urban sprawl

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 132

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Mr Michael Cross

11685

Mr David George

11689 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Neil and Tricia Hardy

11705 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Mr Malcolm Jeffrey

11710 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Mr Gareth Jones

11713

Ms Elaine Nylander

11719 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Schedule of comments and responses

Comments

Council's response

In order to protect the existing character of the Village of Ponteland, no greenbelt development of the surrounding area should be allowed at all. Any development on the greenbelt would lead to urban sprawl as well as the loss of Ponteland's village feel. There are also significant concerns that future development of the surrounding greenbelt will increase the potential flooding problem in Ponteland given the additional run off from developments. The infrastructure in Ponteland including roads and schools could not support further development of the greenbelt and even if infrastructure is improved to accommodate development, this would again detract from the village feel.

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The existing green belt boundary should not be changed, in order to protect the character of The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland Village and prevent urban sprawl. Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The existing Northumberland Green Belt boundary should not be changed. Development The Council recognises the special character of requirements for Ponteland remain within the existing boundary, expansion of the green belt is Ponteland and its setting however, given the not necessary. The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the length of time since the Green Belt was character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. 'The existing green belt boundary should NOT be changed in order to protect the character of The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl Othe Comment - The existing green belt boundary Ponteland and its setting however, given the should be maintained WITHOUT exception length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. In order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl, the existing The Council recognises the special character of green belt boundary should not be changed. Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Page 133

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Mr Anthony Ridley

11722 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Mr Nick Park

11729 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Mr John Austin

11738 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Mr Michael and Mrs Rita Grant

11741 An alternative approach would be appropriate

J. R. Edlin

11744 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Schedule of comments and responses

Comments

Council's response

The 'Green Belt' must remain untouched. What would Newcastle be like if the Town Moor was developed. It was spoilt when the road was put across from the Fenham Hall drive area. It's too late when it is built on! These firms want to build and profiteer because people want to live in Ponteland but as explained earlier people will not want to live here if it is too big and we have to travel to find reasonably sized areas of open space.

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. Ponteland is a pleasant semi rural community with Ponteland and its setting however, given the lots of undeveloped / agricultural open space contributing to its environment. Part of the reason length of time since the Green Belt was for this it's unusual shape created by the large footprint Darras Hall development to the south. I established, some localised review of the urge the planners not to feel that this an opportunity to for new developments by 'colouring in boundaries may be required to accommodate the green bits to make it nice and round'. If these mooted developments are allowed to take appropriate development required during and place they will be the thin end of the wedge and Ponteland will be ultimately absorbed into beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform Newcastle. Planners considering these green belt developments should take a look at what such decisions the Council is currently updating its happened to the villages and towns of the West Midlands. Pleasant individual communities population modelling in cooperation with turned into urban sprawls in a matter of years. Ultimately building houses in Ponteland would neighbouring authorities. only satisfy one need. The need for wealthy speculators to make more millions by selling land they speculated on. This greed should not be allowed to spoil the living environment of generation of Ponteland and Northumberland residents. When the green belt is gone, it's gone forever. I urge the council not to allow development that spoils the environment for future generations, including my kids The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. Considering the plans for existing new housing Ponteland and its setting however, given the that have been passed, no doubt the character of any future housing would also destroy the length of time since the Green Belt was village character of Ponteland. established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. The green belt is a valuable and irreplaceable Ponteland and its setting however, given the resource and amenity for all. Once developed it will not be recovered. It would be vandalism to length of time since the Green Belt was destroy it unnecessarily for speculative development. The only justification for taking up any established, some localised review of the green belt land would perhaps be for the creation of a bypass - but one much further to the boundaries may be required to accommodate north than currently proposed. This would be to the benefit of almost everyone in PonteJand; it appropriate development required during and would free the centre of heavy through traffic and be a genuine environmental improvement. beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Page 134

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Brian L. Edlin

11747 An alternative approach would be appropriate

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. The green belt is a valuahle and irreplaceable resource and amenity for all. Once developed it will not be recovered. It would be vandalism to destroy it unnecessarily for speculative development. The only justification for taking up any green belt land would perhaps be for the creation of a bypass -but one much further to the north than currently proposed. This would be to the benefit of almost everyone in Ponteland; it would free the centre of heavy through traffic and be a genuine environmental improvement.

R.E. Coggins

11759 An alternative approach would be appropriate

The existing green belt boundary should NOT be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr Geoffrey Appleby

11776

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mrs Margaret Appleby

11779

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr Alan Armstrong

11782

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mrs Yvonne Armstrong

11785

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 135

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

MJ Armstrong

11789

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr & Mrs John and Dorothy Avery

11792

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr and Mrs George and Pauline Ball

11798

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr Allan Barnfather

11801

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

P Cram

11804

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr Geoff Davison

11808

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 136

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Ms Shirley Barnfather

11810

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr Alan Barritt

11814

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mrs J Davison

11816

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Ms Helen Batey

11819

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

J M Cook

11822

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mrs A Baxter

11825

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 137

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Mr G.D. Bennett

11826

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr J. Beyon

11830

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mrs Sarah Anne Dawson

11832

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

D.A. Beyon

11836

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

T W Cranston

11838

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mrs PL Dodd

11842

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 138

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Mr Dodds

11847

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr G.T. Boden

11848

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mrs D. Boden

11853

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mrs Dodds

11854

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Miss Marie Cuthbertson

11856

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

A and L.D. Bolam

11859

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 139

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Mrs Rosemary Doherty

11863

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

John and Linda Bower

11864

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr Jack Dale

11867

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr M. Bullock

11870

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr Ralph Donkin

11875

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr James Burke

11876

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 140

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Mrs M Danby

11879

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Jeanne Burke

11883

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mrs Gloria Donkin

11885

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr Peter Edwards

11888

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

J Fagan

11891

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Louis Burke

11894

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 141

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Dr Thomas Fischer

11897

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr Malcolm Burke

11900

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mrs A.H. Burns

11903

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mrs Laura Carruthers

11906

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Ms Doreen Chrisp

11909

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Ms Joanne Gallagher

11912

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 142

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Ms Sarah Gallagher

11915

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Ms Helen Glover

11918

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr & Mrs Graham

11922

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr & Mrs W Ireland

11925

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr Alexander Grant

11929

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

A H Jackman

11933

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 143

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Mr Gary Grant

11935

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

M P Jackman

11939

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Ms Lindsey Grant

11942

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr Graham Johnson

11945

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Ms Kim Johnson

11951

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

E A Hill

11952

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 144

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Mr David Greenwell

11955

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

P J Hill

11958

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mrs S Johnson

11962

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Ms Christine Greenwell

11965

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

T Johnson

11968

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Jane Keating

11971

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 145

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Mr G.M. Hann

11974

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr & Mrs John & Hilary Ketchin

11977

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr Howard Holliday

11980

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. Not another urban spawl like Killingworth, Cramlington etc.

Mrs Susan Lamb

11984

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr R Huddart

11986

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr Colin Lamb

11989

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 146

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Mr Geoff Hutchinson

11992

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Ms Eileen Hutchinson

11997

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Ms Ruth Langstaff

11998

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mrs Norma Leach

12001

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr Allan Liddle

12004

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Ms Marie Liddle

12007

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 147

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Mrs D.J. McEnaney

12010

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr & Mrs G.W. McGaw

12013

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Fran McGrath

12016

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mrs J McQueen

12019

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mrs C.V. Miles

12022

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Ms Dawn Minto

12025

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 148

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

J.J. Moon

12028

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr and Mrs Peter and Dorothy Luper

12031

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

S Moore

12034

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr A Newton

12037

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Doris Morley

12040

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr David Morris

12044

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 149

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

J Nixon

12046

Ms Ruth Morris

12049

J.A. Oliver

12052

J.S. Oliver

12055

Mr Andrew Moses

12058

Mrs Karen Moses

12061

Schedule of comments and responses

Comments

Council's response

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. The wildlife it contains would be severely disrupted Ponteland and its setting however, given the - red squirrels, deer, bats, pheasants, hedgehogs, 2 species of owls etc. length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. Natural environment and wildlife protection is addressed in other sections of the Core Strategy.

Page 150

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Mr William Moses

12064

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Ms Dorethy Oswald

12067

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Ms Michelle Overbury

12070

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr P Overbury

12073

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl

Mr Kenneth Parker

12076

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr & Mrs J Prudhoe

12079

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 151

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Ms Caroline Pryer

12082

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr David Pryer

12085

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Ms Gillian Purdy

12089

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

W.R. Rabey

12092

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Ms Gail Rafter

12095

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr James Rankin

12098

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 152

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

D Boland

12106

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. With no bye pass, the infrastructure of ponteland is under strain.

Ms Gillian Naylor

12110 An alternative approach would be appropriate

The existing Green Belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the rural character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

J Emmerson

12115

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. It is of particular concern that the 'Deadline for comments' of 15th August 2012 was not brought to my attention by the councilon such an extremely important matter. (A letter to each household affected should have been the minimum requirement.

Mrs Joanna Reed

12116 An alternative approach would be appropriate

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and present urban sprawl. The existing green belt was obviously put in place as a form of protection and why should this be changed to line the pockets of developers? It is an absolute outrage and disgrace that our wildlife and rural environment should be removed on the flimsy reasons that have been outlined so far. I strongly feel that instead of going down this ill-thought out route of needless expansion, Northumberland County Council should be looking to improve what we already have. There is dire need for improvements to our shops, roads, pavements, schools, car parks and improvements to the facilities for the elderly and vulnerable before we look to adding numbers to our already overburdened village. There cannot be any benefit whatsoever from an additional 3000 houses in this lovely area. I note that "donations" that have been promised. How can these possibly compensate for what is at risk?

Ms Laura Sheridan

12123

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

S Emerson

12124

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 153

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Ms Kate Sheridan

12130

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Ms Karen Sheridan

12133

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

M P Sherwin

12136

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr and Mrs Sinha

12139

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mrs J Starling

12142

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Ms Caroline Thompson

12145

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 154

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Mr Kevin Thompson

12148

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr J. Walls

12150 An alternative approach would be appropriate

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Ms Amanda Turner

12153

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Susanah Walton

12159 An alternative approach would be appropriate

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Guy Wickham

12164 An alternative approach would be appropriate

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr & Mrs Michael & Diana Hutchinson

12167

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 155

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Neil Wilson

12170 An alternative approach would be appropriate

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr Iain Riccalton

12173

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Ralph and Carol Watson

12176 An alternative approach would be appropriate

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Ms Louise Riccalton

12180

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Ms Victoria Riccalton

12184

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr David Robertson

12194

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 156

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Mrs J.E. Stembridge

12196 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Jill Taylor

12204 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Mary Teasdale

12208 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Mrs J Teasdale

12211 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Julia Waddell

12215 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Mr Neil and Mrs Gillian Watson

12218 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Schedule of comments and responses

Comments

Council's response

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. Under NO circumstances should the green belt boundaries be invaded or used for many many obvious reasons such as flooding.

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. I have seen deer, bats, pheasants and foxes in the Ponteland and its setting however, given the fields. Think about all this wildlife habitat being destroyed. length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. Our services find it difficult enough to cope with Ponteland and its setting however, given the bad weather. Flooding and services for the elderly. length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. Once green belt is built on we won’t get it Ponteland and its setting however, given the back. Ponteland will have more problems with flooding. length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. Our countryside needs protection from Ponteland and its setting however, given the development. Once it’s gone its gone – there are other alternatives for where to build. length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. I do now want Ponteland to lose its village feel and Ponteland and its setting however, given the identity. Green belt development would be ruinous. length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Page 157

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Mr Albert Venegas

12219

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl

Mrs Elizabeth Venegas

12222

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl

Mr James Robertson

12225

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr Peter Robertson

12230

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

V. Wallace

12233

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl

Miss J L Keating

12237

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 158

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

M. Wallborne

12240

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl

Ms Anita Robson

12243

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Ms I S M Cowell

12247

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Ms Catherine Winters

12249

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl

D.J. Winters

12256

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl

Mrs Christine Naughton

12259 An alternative approach would be appropriate

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. Ponteland will lose its character as a village in green belt.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 159

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Mr & Mrs James & Susan Robson

12264

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr Paul Robson

12267

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr or Mrs Meadows

12273 An alternative approach would be appropriate

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. Leave this as a village plenty of lovely gardens and green fields leading into village. No commercial buildings.

Ms Kathleen Ross

12278

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr & Mrs Fred & Gloria Sayer

12283

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Ms Sheila Campbell

12286

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 160

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Mr Patrick Sheridan

12291

M.D. Martin

12292 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Mr P Brewis

12295

Chris Brummitt

12299

Mrs Joan Jackson

12301 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Prof Peter T Emmerson

12305

Schedule of comments and responses

Comments

Council's response

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. In spite of their claims to the contrary, firms Ponteland and its setting however, given the granted permission to build on green belt areas have no real concern for the character and length of time since the Green Belt was ethos of villages such as Ponteland. established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. The wishes of the community were made perfectly Ponteland and its setting however, given the clear to the council’s planning strategy team at the Memorial Hall meeting. There is no length of time since the Green Belt was logical extension to the existing village boundary that could be considered for expansion – established, some localised review of the this is profiteering with no benefit to the village of the community. Neither Banks or the Lugano boundaries may be required to accommodate Group have anything positive to offer. appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. Other areas have been ruined by building on Ponteland and its setting however, given the green belt land. It shouldn’t happen to Ponteland. length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. To maintain the present very pleasant village Ponteland and its setting however, given the character of Ponteland it is essential to resist any proposed change to the existing green belt length of time since the Green Belt was boundary. established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Page 161

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

M. Jagger

12309 An alternative approach would be appropriate

H James

12313 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Mr Andrew Garner

12316 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Mark Reynolds

12319 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Gloria Stapylton

12322 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Margaret Thompson

12325 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Schedule of comments and responses

Comments

Council's response

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. The green belt has served the UK very well and the planning laws after the last war, preserved the county from the hideous sprawl that developed in the 1920’s to the 1930’s. The ‘quality of life’ is much more important, in this over-crowded country, than the aspirations of greedy speculators.

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. The voices of the residents and the community of Ponteland and its setting however, given the Ponteland should be valued and listened to. I oppose strongly building on green belt land – length of time since the Green Belt was the protection of the green belt should be paramount – and there should be a commitment to established, some localised review of the retaining green spaces and the character of Ponteland – any developments would cause boundaries may be required to accommodate irreversible damage. appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. The proposed development will have a negative Ponteland and its setting however, given the impact on wildlife and threaten the existence of protected species such as red squirrels etc. length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. Clearly developers are seeking to build on green Ponteland and its setting however, given the fields in Ponteland, take their profit and leave with little concern for long term sustainable length of time since the Green Belt was community development. This would degrade the character, amenity and environment of established, some localised review of the Ponteland placing additional pressure on infrastructure. Thank you for considering my boundaries may be required to accommodate comments, please do keep me updated on the process. appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. To do away with the existing green belt would be Ponteland and its setting however, given the criminal and would totally destroy the peaceful ambiance of Ponteland. length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. The developers are not interested in the welfare of Ponteland and its setting however, given the Ponteland, only in making a lot of money then moving on. length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Page 162

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Tim Thorpe

12328 An alternative approach would be appropriate

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. This should be protected at all costs.

Alan Tuck

12337 An alternative approach would be appropriate

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. Strongly agree. Ponteland already has overburdened draining systems and flooding issues. This can only be exacerbated by further development.

Mrs Maureen Atkinson

12339

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the of Ponteland village and present urban sprawl

Mrs Anne Cutter

12342

People who now live in Ponteland came here for the village life atmosphere, it has changed enough in the last 42 years I have lived here, please please do not allow this to happen again

Karen Tuck

12345 An alternative approach would be appropriate

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. Strongly agree. Ponteland already has overburdened draining systems and flooding issues. This can only be exacerbated by further development.

Mr Kenneth Stephen Faulkner

12357

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. Traffic on the A696 through the centre of the village has more than doubled over the last 20-30 years and yet the byepass promised all those years ago still has not been constructed. Shameful! The A696 byepass is the priority without urban sprawl.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 163

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Mr L. Fraser

12360

Mr Alan Freeman

12363

Elizabeth French

12366

Mrs M.T. Garner

12369

Ms Imogen Garner

12372

Mr Graeme Riccalton

12375

Schedule of comments and responses

Comments

Council's response

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the of Ponteland village and present urban sprawl The government attaches great importance to green belts. The fundamental aim of green belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The essential characteristics of green belts are their openness and their permanence.

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the of Ponteland The Council recognises the special character of village and present urban sprawl Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the of Ponteland The Council recognises the special character of village and present urban sprawl 40 years ago application to build between Callerton Lane and Ponteland and its setting however, given the Willow Way was turned down on account of traffic chaos expected on Callerton Lane. If that length of time since the Green Belt was held then traffic is certainly no less. We are leaving debt for future generations. What a shame established, some localised review of the to leave no green belt as breathing spaces for them. boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the of Ponteland The Council recognises the special character of village and present urban sprawl Building on the green belt will lead to loss of open space and Ponteland and its setting however, given the have a negative impact on wildlife. The resulting increase in noise pollution and traffic will also length of time since the Green Belt was be detrimental to the safety of young children. established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the of Ponteland The Council recognises the special character of village and present urban sprawl Building on the green belt will also have an adverse impact on Ponteland and its setting however, given the wildlife and will lead to a loss of open space, as well as unwanted air and noise pollution. length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. This will also increase the likelihood of a potential Ponteland and its setting however, given the flood. length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Page 164

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Ms Dorothy Riccalton

12378

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr Stuart Riccalton

12381

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. Loss of green belt will mean Ponteland virtually becoming a suburb of Newcastle

Mr Peter J Wealleans

12384

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. We want a village as it is we don’t want Ponteland village turned into “Cramlington New Town or a Washington New Town― .

Ms Ann Winks

12387

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. We need to protect the wildlife corridor. We need to ensure flooding in Ponteland does not re-occur.

Ms Coral Wilmot

12396

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. 300 houses over the next 10 years – unbelievable – if our green belt is not protected Ponteland will soon become part of Kenton Bank as a suburb of Newcastle.

Mr Michael Wilson

12399

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. Green Belt is there for a reason.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 165

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Mr Michael Rowlands

12402

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. And to protect wildlife in the area. It was made green belt for a reason and redevelopment was not one of them.

Ms Sylvia Rowlands

12405

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. And to protect wildlife in the area. It was made green belt for a reason and redevelopment was not one of them.

Ms Susan Hann

12408

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the of Ponteland village and present urban sprawl There are many opportunities for urban redevelopment in Newcastle upon Tyne without encroaching upon green belt

Ms Marilyn Killen

12411

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the of Ponteland village and present urban sprawl

Mr Robert Killen

12414

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the of Ponteland village and present urban sprawl

Mr H. Knight

12417

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the of Ponteland village and present urban sprawl The main attractions of Ponteland are the character of the village and nearby green belt land. Further development will destroy this

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 166

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Mrs H. Knight

12420

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the of Ponteland village and present urban sprawl The main attractions of Ponteland are the character of the village and nearby green belt land. Further development will destroy this

Mr McEnaney

12423

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the of Ponteland village and present urban sprawl

Mrs McEnaney

12426

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the of Ponteland village and present urban sprawl

Mr Christopher Matthew

12429

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the of Ponteland village and present urban sprawl The “commentâ€does not read well. Suggest – To protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl the existing green belt boundary should not be changed

Georgina Matthew

12432

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the of Ponteland village and present urban sprawl The “commentâ€does not read well. Suggest – To protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl the existing green belt boundary should not be changed

Mrs W.A. Matthew

12435

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the of Ponteland village and present urban sprawl I strongly object to ANY green belt land being used for housing

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 167

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Mrs B.E. Milstead

12438

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the of Ponteland village and present urban sprawl – If greenbelt is amended and build on Ponteland will be joined up with proposed development of Upper Callerton, Middle Callerton, Lower Callerton, Kingston Park, Kenton Bank Foot, Dinnington etc making us another Killingworth

G. Morland

12441

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the of Ponteland village and present urban sprawl Leave our boundary alone who needs our village to be ruined

Ms Andria Pope

12444

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the of Ponteland village and present urban sprawl There is no need to build a green belt at all. If demand for new housing can be proven and I don’t think it can, then priority should be given to develop brown field sites, of which there are plenty in Ponteland

Mr Nicholas Pope

12447

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the of Ponteland village and present urban sprawl There is no need to build a green belt at all. If demand for new housing can be proven and I don’t think it can, then priority should be given to develop brown field sites, of which there are plenty in Ponteland

F.W.T. Read

12450

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the of Ponteland village and present urban sprawl The present green belt boundary should be maintained to give residents the confidence for their future well being

Mrs M Richardson

12453

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the of Ponteland village and present urban sprawl

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 168

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Mrs Heather Robertson

12456

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the of Ponteland village and present urban sprawl

Barry Robson

12459

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the of Ponteland village and present urban sprawl - Agree

Ms Julie Harris

12462

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. We totally agree with the above comment.

Susanne Robson

12465

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the of Ponteland village and present urban sprawl - Agree

Mr Stephen Robson

12468

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the of Ponteland village and present urban sprawl We totally agree with the above comment

Mr John Hewett

12471

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. Urban sprawl will inevitably lead to a merger of Ponteland to Newcastle in a southerly direction. This must be prevented to maintain the character of Ponteland.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 169

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Ms Norma Turnbull

12474

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the of Ponteland village and present urban sprawl – Certainly no change needed

Mrs Pat Hoy

12477

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. Very important to keep Ponteland a village which is why people have come to live here.

Mr Adrian Gosselin

12483

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

A Farquhar

12486

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. Housing sales are already very slow in the area and prices generally drifting downwards. Further developments will only inevitably lead to the joining up of Ponteland with Newcastle in due course. The character of this unique settlement must be preserved

Mr Stephen Carss

12492

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Ms Claire Carss

12495

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 170

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Mr J. Bravey

12498

Mrs N. Bravey

12501

S & S Colman

12504

Ms Christine McIntyre

12507

Mrs A. Marr

12510

Mrs Ann Mitchell

12513

Schedule of comments and responses

Comments

Council's response

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the of Ponteland village and present urban sprawl - I heartily agree

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. There is an adequate housing supply in the Ponteland area and there is no need for new The Council recognises the special character of development land to be created in the green belt - I heartily agree! Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the of Ponteland The Council recognises the special character of village and present urban sprawl – Agreed – Any money spend would better be used on Ponteland and its setting however, given the upgrade of existing roads. Pot holes are rife around local roads length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the of Ponteland The Council recognises the special character of village and present urban sprawl Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the of Ponteland The Council recognises the special character of village and present urban sprawl As a long time resident I have seen change from a peaceful Ponteland and its setting however, given the village. We had to fight for the first safe crossing to get children over the road. Now the traffic is length of time since the Green Belt was horrific. Large vehicles, endangering the lovely old stone bridge. ENOUGH!! established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the of Ponteland The Council recognises the special character of village and present urban sprawl Environmentally a disaster – sightings of red squirrels are Ponteland and its setting however, given the increasing at present. Traffic already impossible, especially at school times. New Health Centre length of time since the Green Belt was already struggling with appointments established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Page 171

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Mr Paul Mitchell

12516

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the of Ponteland village and present urban sprawl

Mrs M.J. Fitzgerald

12519

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the of Ponteland village and present urban sprawl I am fully in agreement with this

Mr Alan Fox

12522

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the of Ponteland village and present urban sprawl We all know the developers are not concerned about our village they only want to ruin it for their profit. The best way for them to help us is for them to pack up and go

Ms Eirian Fox

12525

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the of Ponteland village and present urban sprawl Additional housing on the scale proposed would destroy the village atmosphere

Mr Mark Wales

12528

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Ms Jill Wales

12532

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland and prevent urban sprawl.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 172

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

J.T Rowlands

12564

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr & Mrs Joyce & Harry Parvin

12567

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

K Ford

12571

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr & Mrs Dereck & Gill Deans

12574

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

G & A.E Gaskell

12577

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Mr & Mrs D.K Appleton

12580

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 173

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Mr & Mrs B.T. & V Spencer

Comment Response ID 12583

Comments

Council's response

The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland village and prevent urban sprawl. We wish to add that the green belf field that backs onto Willow way acts as a wildlife corridor to the surrounding farmland, with regular visits by fox, hedgehog, pheasants, a wide range of of both garden and farmland birds , particularly yellowhammers, woodpeckers and sparrowhawk. It is also a regular hunting ground for bats and most evenings can be seen in our garden, we even have visits by red squirrel. Given the facts, along with other comments residents have sent into you we would request that the field between Callerton Lane and Willow way be left within the protection of the green belt.

The Council recognises the special character of Ponteland and its setting however, given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities. The Council's view is that the major area of development pressure in the County is associated with the Tyne & Wear City Region and therefore the only extension that may be justified is that around Morpeth, which increases the depth of the existing Tyne & Wear Green Belt and has already been established by the Structure Plan.

Mr Phil Russell

3400 An alternative approach would be appropriate

These options need to be considered when green belt status is agreed for the coastline.

Mr Peter Gomersall

4441 An alternative approach would be appropriate

These options need to be considered when green belt status is agreed for the coastline.

The Council's view is that the major area of development pressure in the County is associated with the Tyne & Wear City Region and therefore the only extension that may be justified is that around Morpeth, which increases the depth of the existing Tyne & Wear Green Belt and has already been established by the Structure Plan.

Broadly agree but with proposed revisions. Northumberland College broadly agree with the treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt. However, they consider the Northumberland College Kirkley Hall Campus site to represent an exception worthy of being excluded from the Green Belt with an inset boundary. The proposed inset boundary is as per the red line on plan Ref: NCC 01 – Proposed Green Belt Inset (as appended to these representations) [attached]. Setting the College Campus out from the Green Belt would allow further development, both for the College’s own use or any redevelopment with a view to the College consolidating / redeveloping within the site boundary or elsewhere. Allowing the College campus to be inset within the Northumberland Green Belt would cause no harm to the surrounding openness and no other detrimental landscape impact. The College remain open to discussions on the treatment of the site and would welcome detailed discussions with the Council over the proposed boundary.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) does not contain policy for the designation of ‘major developed sites’ as set out in the earlier and now superseded ‘Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green Belts’ (PPG2). However NPPF paragraph 89 sets out exceptions to the construction of new buildings being considered inappropriate and paragraph 90 lists other forms of development that are not inappropriate provided they do not conflict with the purposes of including land in Green Belt. While it may not be possible to place an inset boundary around Kirkley Hall, as might previously have been used to designate a major developed site, these exceptions still provide some scope for future development at the site: 89. A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt. Exceptions to this are: - buildings for agriculture and forestry; - provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and for cemeteries, as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it; - the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building; - the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces; - limited infilling in villages, and limited affordable

Ms Viv Gillespie

Northumberland College Mr Richard Garland

Schedule of comments and responses

George F White

10404 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Page 174

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Ms Viv Gillespie

Company / Agent Name (if Organisation (if applicable) applicable) Northumberland College Mr Richard Garland

Mrs Lucinda FlemingJones

Schedule of comments and responses

Agent Details (if applicable) George F White

Comment Response ID 10404 An alternative approach would be appropriate

3052

Comments

Council's response

Broadly agree but with proposed revisions. Northumberland College broadly agree with the treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt. However, they consider the Northumberland College Kirkley Hall Campus site to represent an exception worthy of being excluded from the Green Belt with an inset boundary. The proposed inset boundary is as per the red line on plan Ref: NCC 01 – Proposed Green Belt Inset (as appended to these representations) [attached]. Setting the College Campus out from the Green Belt would allow further development, both for the College’s own use or any redevelopment with a view to the College consolidating / redeveloping within the site boundary or elsewhere. Allowing the College campus to be inset within the Northumberland Green Belt would cause no harm to the surrounding openness and no other detrimental landscape impact. The College remain open to discussions on the treatment of the site and would welcome detailed discussions with the Council over the proposed boundary.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) does not contain policy for the designation of ‘major developed sites’ as set out in the earlier and now superseded ‘Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green Belts’ (PPG2). However NPPF paragraph 89 sets out exceptions to the construction of new buildings being considered inappropriate and paragraph 90 lists other forms of development that are not inappropriate provided they do not conflict with the purposes of including land in Green Belt. While it may not be possible to place an inset boundary around Kirkley Hall, as might previously have been used to designate a major developed site, these exceptions still provide some scope for future development at the site: 89. A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt. Exceptions to this are: - buildings for agriculture and forestry; - provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and for cemeteries, as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it; - the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building; - the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces; - limited infilling in villages, and limited affordable The purpose of the Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl from the Tyne and Wear conurbation into south and south east Northumberland. The council is of the view that the existing boundaries were established and defined through regional, structure plan and local policies, while the extension to the Green Belt around Morpeth was established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5. The council is now going through the process of defining boundaries as described in NPPF paragraph 85. The creation of new Green Belt is not considered an appropriate policy approach for the Northumberland coastal area north of the existing Green Belt and would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

These options need to be considered when green belt status is agreed for the coastline.

Page 175

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

The purpose of the Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl from the Tyne and Wear conurbation into south and south east Northumberland. The council is of the view that the existing boundaries were established and defined through regional, structure plan and local policies, while the extension to the Green Belt around Morpeth was established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5. The council is now going through the process of defining boundaries as described in NPPF paragraph 85. The creation of new Green Belt is not considered an appropriate policy approach for the Northumberland coastal area north of the existing Green Belt and would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The purpose of the Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl from the Tyne and Wear conurbation into south and south east Northumberland. The council is of the view that the existing boundaries were established and defined through regional, structure plan and local policies, while the extension to the Green Belt around Morpeth was established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5. The council is now going through the process of defining boundaries as described in NPPF paragraph 85. The creation of new Green Belt is not considered an appropriate policy approach for the Northumberland coastal area north of the existing Green Belt and would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The purpose of the Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl from the Tyne and Wear conurbation into south and south east Northumberland. The council is of the view that the existing boundaries were established and defined through regional, structure plan and local policies, while the extension to the Green Belt around Morpeth was established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5. The council is now going through the process of defining boundaries as described in NPPF paragraph 85. The creation of new Green Belt is not considered an appropriate policy approach for the Northumberland coastal area north of the existing Green Belt and would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Mr James Williamson

3515

These options need to be considered when green belt status is agreed for the coastline.

Mrs Christine Williamson

3693

These options need to be considered when green belt status is agreed for the coastline.

Mr and Mrs Jim and Susan Norris

7000

These options need to be considered when green belt status is agreed for the coastline.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 176

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Mrs S Shanks

Company / Organisation (if applicable) Bamburgh Parish Council

W Boone

Mr JRR Prescott

Mr and Mrs Potts

Neal Hill

Schedule of comments and responses

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID 9268

12262

746

Comments

Council's response

When we have a policy for the coast then we can give an opinion.

The purpose of the Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl from the Tyne and Wear conurbation into south and south east Northumberland. The council is of the view that the existing boundaries were established and defined through regional, structure plan and local policies, while the extension to the Green Belt around Morpeth was established through the saved Northumberland and National Park Joint Structure Plan, 2005, Policy S5. The council is now going through the process of defining boundaries as described in NPPF paragraph 85. The creation of new Green Belt is not considered an appropriate policy approach for the Northumberland coastal area north of the existing Green Belt and would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Green belt areas – designated to prevent urban sprawl, and to protect the water table need to The purposes of the Green Belt do not include be retained to fulfil that purpose for both current and future generations. It’s a ‘slippery protecting the water table. slope’ once these areas are encroached. Longhorsley should be included in the green belt (washed over), should most definitely not be The view that Longhorsley should be inset within inset and should not (despite tier 3 status) be reviewed as plans evolve. It is imperative that our the Green Belt is noted. In response to the Core village is given the protection of green field status and that this protection is retained. Strategy Issues and Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements, which will be discussed with consultees at the next consultation stage. To identify the level of development needed across the County, the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

1622 An alternative approach would be appropriate

After attending the Workshop Session at Ponteland Memorial Hall on Thursday 19th July, which we found very interesting and informative, we would like to put forward our views as to the future of Medburn. We understand that the plan for Medburn is to 'wash' it over with Green Belt. We feel this would be inappropriate as there are still plots of land, already identified on your plan of Medburn and within the settlement boundary, to be developed. At the moment Medburn is a 'window in the Green Belt' we think this should remain so until all the available land has been utilised. As there is a need for 'housing' land within Ponteland and the only sites available being the Auction Mart and the Police Headquarters, Medburn would be the ideal opportunity for development before encroaching on the Green Belt. The feeling of all of the people who attended the Workshop, was that the Green Belt surrounding Ponteland should remain so, we also agree with this view. We hope our views will be taken into consideration when discussing the key issues and needs of Ponteland.

The view that Med burn should remain inset in the Green Belt is noted as is the view that Green Belt boundary around Ponteland should remain unchanged. Given the length of time since the Green Belt was established, some localised review of the boundaries may be required to accommodate appropriate development required during and beyond the Core Strategy plan period. To inform such decisions the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities, following which it may be possible to get a clearer picture of appropriate development levels for Medburn.

11763 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Green Belt. In Section 2 of the document the Spatial Portrait of Northumberland states that 'Countryside between the towns and villages has been kept open through the Green Belt designation'. It also says that 'Northumberland remains mainly rural'. It is because of the Green Belt that Ponteland has remained so special. It prevents the urban sprawl expanding from Newcastle and allows a green and leafy approach to the village with views across Northumberland to the north as far as Cheviot. I would ask that the Local Development Plan must follow National Guidance in that Green Belt is only altered in exceptional circumstances. The development of more houses I would suggest is not an exceptional circumstance.

The view that no Green Belt boundary review should take place around Ponteland is noted. Evidence of the need for change will be required to support any boundary changes proposed via the Core Strategy or a subsequent delivery or allocations stage Development Plan Document. There will be opportunities to discuss any new proposals at the relevant stage.

Page 177

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Mr & Mrs Byatt

Mr Andrew Moss

Wardhadaway

Mr David Dungait

Mrs Jennifer Bland

Dickinson Dees LLP

Schedule of comments and responses

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

7763 An alternative approach would be appropriate

Mr and Mrs Byatt consider Stannington / Stannington Station should be inset from the Green Belt. Without prejudice to the above contention that Stannington / Stannington Station should be inset from the Green Belt, as a second option, Stannington Station should either be inset or washed over. This would leave a need for a policy to be included to allow for infill development subject to it not having an adverse effect on the character of the village. In this latter approach the Local Plan may need defined infill boundaries to avoid dispute over whether particular sites are covered by infill policies. The particular site where infill development should be allowed is SHLAA site 3486. The Glossary definition of infill is 'building on a relatively small site between existing buildings' . SHLAA site 3486 is within this definition and could be developed without harm. For completeness Mr & Mrs Byatt do not consider Stannington Station should be classified as a Tier 5 Settlement and separate representations have been made in relation to this issue.

The view that Stannington and Stannington Station should be inset within the Green belt is noted. In response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation further work is currently being carried out on the approach to delivery in settlements, which will be discussed with consultees at the next consultation stage. To identify the level of development needed across the County, the Council is currently updating its population modelling in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

7569

Tier 1 settlements must be excluded from the Green Belt and there should be specific This comment is in line with proposed policy. consultation on the precise boundaries for these insets. In particular, Morpeth is identified for growth and the boundary around Morpeth needs to be carefully considered and consulted upon to ensure this planned growth can be delivered.

Page 178

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Consultation point: Previously devleoped land and major developed sites Full Name

Mr Alan Hunter

Company / Organisation (if applicable) English Heritage

Schedule of comments and responses

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Title ID

Comments

7517 Previously devleoped Paragraph 9.16 - ....'complete re development of previously developed sites...........'. The land and major NPPF contains, in paragraph 89, exceptions which are potentially more helpful to heritage developed sites conservation.

Page 179

Council's response

Comment noted and the error will be amended in the next version after Preferred Option document.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 42: Should the Council rely on national planning policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Mr Patrick Cooper

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID 11679 No

Mr Keith Butler

3257

Mr Harry Forshaw

11584

Neil and Tricia Hardy

11706

Mr Peter Walton

Mrs Patricia Wilson

5893 No

Slaley Parish Council

7879

Mr Tapster

616 Yes

Mr Martin Marsh

712 Yes

Mr Dominic Smith

Persimmon Homes

Mr Philip Ham

Ponteland Civic Society

Mr David M Hobson

986 Yes

Comments

We are pleased to comment covering a number of points as they affect Ponteland. As you Comment noted. know the village (or township) is very close to the metropolis of Newcastle upon Tyne separated by a narrow green belt. For the village to continue to operate as part of Northumberland and to have some independence we consider that no building should be allowed on any greenfield site and that this should be made clear in the core strategy document. We fully understand the importance of the requirement for housing and industry but this can be provided on brown field sites and infill. The village is somewhat influenced by the large estate of Darras Hall which currently swamps the area of the village itself and comprises a significant number of large high priced mansions. This seems currently to be attracting developers who are buying up land (or obtaining options to purchase) all of which are on green belt designated land. It is for this reason that we are concerned and are anxious for this to be taken into account in the final document to minimise the impact of what could be termed unrestricted development which will lead to the end of Ponteland as a separate viable entity rather than as an expensive superb of the city of Newcastle. We understand from presentations made recently by two of the developers that they have plans for some 3,000 houses. If this was granted then the whole character of Ponteland would be lost. The Core Strategy should carefully consider the need to safeguard development in these Comment noted. locations should National Policy change substantially as it has done recently in a number of respects to long standing approaches such as for example “garden grabbing" Should National Policy change it may be that development is prevented. With regard to the Core Strategy for Northumberland I wish to state my belief that it is most Comment noted. important that the Green Belt should be retained and protected. Any necessary devlopments should be restricted to brownfield sites. The Council should apply the principle set out in the National Planning Policy Framework that Comment noted. Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. There is a small development in Shaws Lane to the West of Hexham which was built before the Green Belt was established. This develpment is unobtrusive and fits in well. Developers would look at this area as a wash over. Therefore rules for development in Green Belt should be retained If 'appropriate development' means 'governed by the standard planning criteria', then this might not be adequate to protect the rest of the adjacent green belt from intrusive visual impact, noise or smell from the 'infill' development. There might need to be additional criteria not covered by the NPPF.

We agree with this approach which is consistent with national policy.

1494 Yes

1390 Yes

The Council should rigorously apply the principle set out in the National Planning Policy Framework that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances.

Mr Michael Cuncliffe

Corbridge Village Trust

1685 Yes

Mrs PM Williams

Broomley and Stocksfield Parish Council Hepscott Parish Council

2261 Yes

Yes, but the views of residents should continue to be sought before planning permission is granted.

2535 Yes

Our general view is that the Core Strategy should not designate existing or potential major developed sites in the Green Belt but should continue to allow the Green Belt to wash over them and apply national policy.

Mrs Angela Parr

Mrs Lucinda FlemingJones

Schedule of comments and responses

Council's response

3053 Yes

Page 180

Comments noted.

Other environmental issues such as noise and intrusive visual impact are addressed in a suite of policies in the Natural and Historic Environment section of the Core Strategy Preferred Options consultation document. Support for reliance on national policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is noted. Support for reliance on national policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is noted. Support for reliance on national policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is noted. Support for reliance on national policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is noted. Support for reliance on national policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is noted. Support for reliance on national policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is noted. Support for reliance on national policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is noted. Support for reliance on national policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is noted. Support for reliance on national policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is noted.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 42: Should the Council rely on national planning policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Mrs Deborah Baker

3610 Yes

Mr Phil Russell

3402 Yes

Mrs Christine Williamson

3694 Yes

Mr James Williamson

3516 Yes

Ms Karen Carins

Stannington Station Residents Association

4169 Yes

Mr Andy Colls

3917 Yes

Mr Peter Gomersall

4442 Yes

Mrs Helen Lewis

4963 Yes

Mr John Secker

4757 Yes

Mr Adrian Baker

5032 Yes

Mr Robin Wood

R&KWood Planning on behalf of various clients

Mrs Lisa Hamlin

Acklington Parish Council

5964 Yes

Mrs Lisa Hamlin

Warkworth Parish Council

5762 Yes

Mrs Lisa Hamlin

Felton Parish Council

5465 Yes

Mr Robin Wood

R & K Wood Planning LLP

4910 Yes

Councillor Cathy Duncan Sandhoe Parish Council

6057 Yes

Mr Brian Prickett

6340 Yes

Ms Karen Carins

Stannington Parish Council

6816 Yes

Mrs Lisa Hamlin

Thirston Parish Council

6125 Yes

Mr & Mrs Tony & Lesley Noble

6213 Yes

M. G. and J Funds

Allendale Estates

Mrs Barbara Martin

Morpeth & District Civic Society

Schedule of comments and responses

Comments

Mr Roddy Findlay

Land Factor

Yes the new NPPF has made provision for greater reuse of these sites and any change to restrict this would run counter to the aims of the NPPF.

The principals set out in the National Policy Framework that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances should be adhered to.

6703 Yes

7191 Yes

We agree that the Council should rely on National Planning Policy.

Page 181

Council's response

Support for reliance on national policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is noted. Support for reliance on national policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is noted. Support for reliance on national policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is noted. Support for reliance on national policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is noted. Support for reliance on national policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is noted. Support for reliance on national policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is noted. Support for reliance on national policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is noted. Support for reliance on national policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is noted. Support for reliance on national policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is noted. Support for reliance on national policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is noted. Support for reliance on national policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is noted. Support for reliance on national policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is noted. Support for reliance on national policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is noted. Support for reliance on national policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is noted. Support for reliance on national policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is noted. Support for reliance on national policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is noted. Support for reliance on national policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is noted. Support for reliance on national policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is noted. Support for reliance on national policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is noted. Support for reliance on national policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is noted. Support for reliance on national policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is noted.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 42: Should the Council rely on national planning policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Mr and Mrs Jim and Susan Norris Mr James Johnson

7001 Yes

Northumberland Estates

Mr & Mrs Byatt

Ms Sue Howie

7795 Yes

Mr Andrew Moss

Wardhadaway

Northumberland and Newcastle Society

7764 Yes

8473 Yes

Mr Chris Winks

Miss Elaine Brown

Comment Response ID

8646 Yes

Amble Town Council

Comments

Support for reliance on national policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is noted. The NPPF is an appropriate method of applying the principles of previously developed sites Support for reliance on national policy in relation within the green belt therefore The Northumberland Estates agree with this approach. to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is noted. Mr & Mrs Byatt agree that the Council should rely on national planning policy in relation to Support for reliance on national policy in relation previously developed sites in the Green Belt. The implications of this for SHLAA site 3486 to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is need to be worked through a significant proportion of the site being previously developed land noted. as acknowledged in the SHLAA site assessment. Yes, since this is what the NPPF seems to require. Support for reliance on national policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is noted. The Council should rigorously apply the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework Support for reliance on national policy in relation that Green Belt land will only be developed in exceptional circumstance and that any changes to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is to current Green Belt boundaries can only be done in exceptional circumstances. noted.

8894 Yes

Mrs Zaina Riddle

8950 Yes

Mr Keith Redpath

Miss Jane Wallis

Fairhurst consider that the Core Strategy should echo the NPPF policy on brownfield development in the Green Belt because it provides adequate protection to the openness and purpose of the Green Belt, but will also stimulate sustainable development through the regeneration of brownfield sites.

Support for reliance on national policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is noted. Yes, but protection of the Green Belt is the number one concern of the Ponteland community Support for reliance on national policy in relation and great care is required. This approach is of great concern in relation to the boundary with to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is the airport and specific policies may be required. noted. NWL considers that the Council should rely on guidance in the NPPF in relation to previously Support for reliance on national policy in relation developed sites in the Green Belt. NPPF makes no mention of restricting the application of to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is this guidance to just ‘major developed sites’, nor to the uses to which such sites can noted. be put in the future, so long as the redevelopment does not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt. Support for reliance on national policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is noted. Yes, provided exiting green belt around Ponteland is not compromised. Support for reliance on national policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is noted. Fairhurst consider that the Core Strategy should echo the NPPF policy on brownfield Support for reliance on national policy in relation development in the Green Belt because it provides adequate protection to the openness and to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is purpose of the Green Belt, but will also stimulate sustainable development through the noted. regeneration of brownfield sites. Fairhurst consider that the Core Strategy should echo the NPPF policy on brownfield Support for reliance on national policy in relation development in the Green Belt because it provides adequate protection to the openness and to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is purpose of the Green Belt, but will also stimulate sustainable development through the noted. regeneration of brownfield sites. Fairhurst consider that the Core Strategy should echo the NPPF policy on brownfield Support for reliance on national policy in relation development in the Green Belt because it provides adequate protection to the openness and to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is purpose of the Green Belt, but will also stimulate sustainable development through the noted. regeneration of brownfield sites.

Bamburgh Parish Council

9272 Yes

Mrs Kathleen Mavin

Ponteland Town Council

9737 Yes

Mr Les Hall

Northumbrian Water Limited

Mr Frank Harrington

England and Lyle Limited

9255 Yes

9539 Yes

Mr John Harrison

10324 Yes

Mrs Jane Nolan

Miss Jane Wallis

10959 Yes

Mr Colin Matheson

Miss Jane Wallis

11289 Yes

Mr Mark Bridgeman

Miss Jane Wallis

11037 Yes

Schedule of comments and responses

Support for reliance on national policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is noted. Support for reliance on national policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is noted. Support for reliance on national policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is noted.

8381 Yes

Mrs S Shanks

Mr Ian Lyle

Council's response

Page 182

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 42: Should the Council rely on national planning policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt? Full Name

Comments

Council's response

5403 Yes

CPRE is content that the Council relies on NPPF and considers major previously developed sites in existing Green Belt to be ‘washed over’. Where such a site is part-developed with the expectation of further development, it should reviewed to assess need for inset status. Part of the process of designating the Morpeth extension to the Green Belt should involve reviewing large previously developed large sites eg St Mary’s Hospital or Hepscott Park to determine whether any should be explicit exceptions to the NPPF approach. However CPRE would support the default position that all such sites should be ‘washed over’.

Support for reliance on national policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt is noted. The Council is currently updating its population and economic growth modelling to project where and how much development land is required over the plan period and this additional work will inform the policy approach, which will be subject to consultation in the summer of 2013.

Mr Robert Ramsay

2850

This approach is of great concern in relation to the boundary of Prestwick in Ponteland with the airport and specific policies are required.

Mr W A Cowan

2346

Mrs M Cowan

2966

Dr Nic Best

Company / Organisation (if applicable) CPRE Northumberland

Mr Hugh Cheswright

Schedule of comments and responses

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

11032

The comment about the Benson Report was responded to in relation to Question 38 and the comments in relation to wind turbines are also noted. The Benson report was an invaluable and independent definitive study providing a county The comment about the Benson Report was wide evaluation of the landscape character. The report was commissioned for the region and responded to in relation to Question 38 and the now seems to have been ignored. We consider the Benson report should be reinforced and comments in relation to wind turbines are also not devalued. noted. The Benson report was an invaluable and independent study providing a county wide The comment about the Benson Report was evaluation of the landscape character. This report was commissioned for The Region and responded to in relation to Question 38 and the now seems to have been ignored. We consider the Benson Report should be reinforced and comments in relation to wind turbines are also not devalued. AfRM welcomes the proposal to extend the Green Belt and we anticipate that noted. this proposal will be supported by the vast majority living in Morpeth and surrounding areas. The purpose of a green belt is well defined so as to: - preserve the special setting and character of Morpeth; - prevent Morpeth merging with neighbouring settlements; - assist regeneration of main settlements; - safeguard the countryside from encroachment. This being so we are firmly of the view that wind turbines are wholly incompatible with the concept and purposes of a designated green belt. All wind turbines manufacture electricity on an industrial scale. All turbines connected to the National Grid generate income and must be regarded as 'industrial ventures'. Furthermore, the associated road and substation infrastructure associated with wind farms have a detrimental effect on farmland and the landscape generally. Connections to the National Grid inevitably result in more structures and networks of overhead cables which are very intrusive. Since an extension to the existing Morpeth Green Belt is proposed by NCC and is likely to receive wide support, NCC must not allow this vital concept to be devalued by approving wind farms in the area of the proposed extension to the Green Belt. To do so would wholly negate the important value of the green belt, making a nonsense of the NCC Core Strategy Policies. The Benson report was an invaluable and independent definitive study providing a county wide evaluation of the landscape character. This report was commlssioned for The Region and now seems to have been ignored. We consider the Benson Report should be reinforced and not devalued Comment : AfRM welcomes the proposal to extend the Green Belt and we anticipate that this proposal will be supported by the vast majority living in Morpeth and surrounding areas. The purpose of a green belt is well defined so as to: • preserve the special setting and character of Morpeth, • prevent Morpeth merging with neighbouring settlements • assist regeneration of main settlements • safeguard the countryside from encroachment. This being so we are firmly of the view that wind turbines are wholly incompatible with the concept and purposes of a designated green belt. All wind turbines manufacture electricity on an industrial scale. All turbines connected to the National Grid generate income and must be regarded as 'industrial ventures·. Furthermore, the associated road and substation infrastructure associated with wind farms have a detrimental effect on farmland and the landscape generally. Connections to the National Grid inevitably result in more structures and networks of overhead cables which are very intrusive. Since an extension to the existing Morpeth Green Belt is proposed by NCC and is likely to receive wide support, NCC must not allow this vital concept to be devalued by approving wind fanns in the area of the proposed extension to the Green Belt. To do so would wholly negate the important value of the green belt, making a nonsense of the NCC Core Strategy Policies.

Page 183

The comment about the Benson Report was responded to in relation to Question 38 and the comments in relation to wind turbines are also noted.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 42: Should the Council rely on national planning policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

Mrs Jean Cheswright

11077

The Benson report was an Invaluable and Independent definitive study providing a county wide evaluation of the landscape character. This report was commissioned for The Region and now seems to have been ignored. We consider the Benson Report should be reinforced and not devalued Comment : AfRM welcomes the proposal to extend the Green Belt and we anticipate that this proposal will be supported by the vast majority IMng in Morpeth and surrounding areas. The purpose of a green belt is well defined so as to: • preserve the special setting and character of Morpeth, • prevent Morpeth merging with neighbouring settlements • assist regeneration of main settlements • safeguard the countryside from encroachment. This being so we are firmly of the view that wind turbines are wholly incompatible with the concept and purposes of a designated green belt. All wind turbines manufacture electricity on an industrial scale. All turbines connected to the National Grid generate income and must be regarded as 'industrial ventures'. Furthermore, the associated road and substation infrastructure associated with wind farms have a detrimental effect on farmland and the landscape generally. Connections to the National Grid inevitably result in more structures and networks of overhead cables which are very intrusive. Since an extension to the existing Morpeth Green Belt is proposed by NCC and is likely to receive wide support, NCC must not allow this vital concept to be devalued by approving wind farms in the area of the proposed extension to the Green Belt. - To do so would whollynegate tHi important value of the green belt, making a nonsense of the NCC Core Strategy Policies.

The comment about the Benson Report was responded to in relation to Question 38 and the comments in relation to wind turbines are also noted.

Mr Richard Cansdale

6039

This should be considered on a case by case basis. If I have understood this question correctly it is suggesting that incomplete developments should be given the chance of completion even when the Green Belt is extended. One example of an incomplete development is the land known as Robson's field in Longhorsley which is actually just the remnant of the land earmarked for Phase 3 of the Whitegates Estate, upon which Phases 1 and 2 have already been built. (The width of the entrance road off the A697 and the footpaths make this clear.) Consequently, the houses at the west end of Whitegates currently form an arbitary jagged line where the original development stopped midway across the field, and do not constitute a natural field boundary. In this respect the land might correctly be termed a Green Field but it is not "open countryside". This site should not be washed over but rather inset when the Green Belt is extended. As I have said before, the site is invisible from any roads so it will not impact visually beyond the immediate area, and will not bring Morpeth and Longhorsley any closer together, so in no way conflicts with of the stated aims of the green belt.

The majority of Issues and Options responses agreed with the Council’s proposed approach that the Core Strategy should not identify existing or new major developed sites in the Green Belt but include them in the Green Belt and apply national policy with regard to allowing appropriate development on previously developed land. However the Council is currently updating its population and economic growth modelling to project where and how much development land is required over the plan period. This additional work will inform the policy approach, which will be subject to consultation in the summer of 2013 at which time there will be further discussion in relation to Longhorsley.

Schedule of comments and responses

Page 184

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 42: Should the Council rely on national planning policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt? Full Name

Miss G Turner

Company / Organisation (if applicable) Trustees of Netherton Park

Morpeth Town Council

Schedule of comments and responses

Agent Name (if applicable) Mr Tony Woodcock

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

3359 No

Question 42 of the consultation document is a significant matter in the context of the View that local policy should be used in addition redevelopment of the site; paragraph 9.16 states: "A number of major developed sites are to national policy on previously developed land in identified in existing policies where limited infill development is considered appropriate but the the Green Belt is noted as are concerns about the Green Belt notation is carried across the site (they are washed over). The NPPF now interpretation of NPPF phraseology in relation to considers infilling or the partial or complete development of previously developed sites, land, which under PPG2 could have been whether redundant or in continuing use, as appropriate development. That is provided the designated as Major Developed Sites. The development would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the majority of Issues and Options responses agreed purpose of including land within it. Therefore, the Council's proposed approach is that the with the Council’s proposed approach that the Core Strategy should not designate existing or potential major developed sites in the Green Core Strategy should not identify existing or new Belt but should continue to allow the Green Belt to wash over them and apply national policy."•major developed sites in the Green Belt but The consultation then asks: "Should the Council rely on national planning policy in relation to include them in the Green Belt and apply national previously developed sites in the Green Belt? The relevant paragraph of the National policy with regard to allowing appropriate Planning Policy Framework states: "Limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment development on previously developed land. of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use However the Council is currently updating its (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of population and economic growth modelling to the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development."•The project where and how much development land is Trustees are concerned that any scheme could be compromised by the phrase "which would required over the plan period and this additional not have greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt." This phrase does leave a great work will inform the policy approach, which will be deal of scope for differing interpretations of the term 'openness', and the absence of any clear subject to consultation in the summer of 2013 and consistency in appeal decisions is evidence of this problem. We believe that it this potential at that time the Council would welcome further constraint will not only impact on the potential viability of any redevelopment proposals, but discussion with the Netherton Park Trustees. also the quality of the scheme itself. For these reasons the Trustees request that a window in the Green Belt is created around Netherton Park and I attach a plan indicating their preferred boundary. It is therefore requested that in the particular circumstances which prevail at Netherton Park the Council do not rely on the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework but create a window in the Green Belt. The Trustees would welcome the opportunity to work with the Council to identify appropriate boundaries for that window and develop a sustainable and attractive redevelopment scheme for the site.

1216 No

The Local Plan should be clear on policy relating to large sites likely to be in the new Morpeth Green Belt e.g. St Mary's Hospital, Hepscott Park and cannot rely entirely on the NPPF for these. The main issue, as we see it, is the consideration of the undeveloped land with the grounds on institutions which under PPS3 were considered previously developed land. The NPPF is currently untested on this. MTC would appreciate discussion on this at an early stage as development on such sites would have a major impact on our NP process.

Page 185

View that local policy should be used in addition to national policy on previously developed land in the Green Belt is noted as is the comment that the NPPF is untested on the issue of undeveloped land within sites that under PPG2 could have been designated as Major Developed Sites. The majority of Issues and Options responses agreed with the Council’s proposed approach that the Core Strategy should not identify existing or new major developed sites in the Green Belt but include them in the Green Belt and apply national policy with regard to allowing appropriate development on previously developed land. However the Council is currently updating its population and economic growth modelling to project where and how much development land is required over the plan period and this additional work will inform the policy approach, which will be subject to consultation in the summer of 2013 and at that time the Council would welcome further discussion with Morpeth Town Council on the matter in relation to the emerging Morpeth Neighbourhood Plan.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 42: Should the Council rely on national planning policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt? Full Name

Ms Viv Gillespie

Company / Agent Name (if Organisation (if applicable) applicable) Northumberland College Mr Richard Garland

Mr David Moore

Agent Details (if applicable) George F White

Comment Response ID 10411 No

294 No

Miss Claire Miller

Rothbury Parish Council

7420 No

Ms Claire Miller

Whitton and Tosson Parish Council

7445 No

Mr David Holden

1563 No

Mrs Joan Tebbutt

1882 No

William Harris

111 No

Councillor Jim Scott

Ulgham Parish Council

5549 No

Mr Adrian Hinchcliffe

Bywell Parish Council

11459 No

Schedule of comments and responses

Comments

Council's response

Northumberland College do not agree that the Council should rely on National Planning Policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt. Whilst the change in National Planning Policy is noted, we are strongly of the opinion that further efforts can be made within the Core Strategy to allow for the suitable and sustainable development of the Northumberland College Kirkley Campus site. We would refer the Council to our comments under paragraph 16.6 of the Core Strategy in this regard and the resulting benefit from potential redevelopment of the Kirkley College Campus. The NPPF includes “limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites…―as one of the 6 exceptions to inappropriate development under paragraph 89. Whilst it is apparent that this means any limited infilling or development of the College site would not constitute inappropriate development, we feel that the Core Strategy should include more positive policies for the site in order to support the College over the plan period. In brief, any planning policy drafted along these lines should make reference to the significant weight afforded to material considerations regarding the College and its continued existence within Northumberland. The policy should support development for the College’s own use, over and above “limited infilling― . Furthermore, we would suggest that the policy should indicate that the Council would look favourably upon plans to redevelop the College site for residential/mixed use, providing issues of transport, impact upon listed buildings, appropriate scale, design and visual impact etc can be addressed. We have previously provided the Council with an Existing Development Record for the Kirkley Campus. This represents a useful snapshot in time as to the existing buildings on site. It could also form the basis of a development brief should the College wish to open discussions in the future. We would stress that the College remain dedicated to providing exceptional education facilities across Northumberland. The changing nature of the education market and property requirements mean that the College will need to remain flexible to providing facilities across their range of property holdings, including Kirkley Campus. The proposed policy within the Core Strategy would allow further certainty for the College and the future decision making over the plan period, with the backing of strategic planning policy support.

View that local policy should be used in addition to national policy on previously developed land in the Green Belt is noted as is the view that sole reliance on NPPF would constrain suitable development on undeveloped land within sites that under PPG2 could have been designated as Major Developed Sites. At Issues and Options the majority of Issues and Options responses agreed with the Council’s proposed approach that the Core Strategy should not identify existing or new major developed sites in the Green Belt but include them in the Green Belt and apply national policy with regard to allowing appropriate development on previously developed land. The Council is currently updating its population and economic growth modelling to project where and how much development land is required over the plan period. This additional work will inform the policy approach, which will be subject to consultation in the summer of 2013 and at that time the Council would welcome further discussion with the Northumberland College in relation to the Kirkley Hall Campus.

the policy should be to suit this area, but consideration of national documents should be included

View that local policy should be used in addition to national policy on previously developed land in the Green Belt is noted. View that local policy should be used in addition to national policy on previously developed land in the Green Belt is noted. View that local policy should be used in addition to national policy on previously developed land in the Green Belt is noted. A customised site-specific approach would be more appropriate View that local policy should be used in addition to national policy on previously developed land in the Green Belt is noted. I think there should be an explicit policy. NPPF is very new and includes a lot of weasel words View that local policy should be used in addition so County needs to come up wih its own policy. to national policy on previously developed land in the Green Belt is noted. There is sufficient capacity within the entire region to accommodate general needs that might View that local policy should be used in addition be the subject of a development application within these specific sites. Therefore any to national policy on previously developed land in alteration or development to these previously developed sites in the Green Belt should be the Green Belt is noted. However it is important to exclusively for Green Belt purposes, such as new parkland, walks, outdoor leisure facilities note that local plans and neighbourhood plans (e.g. open air swimming, boating). must comply with national policy. Council should be able to make their own decisions i.e. localism act

View that local policy should be used in addition to national policy on previously developed land in the Green Belt is noted. However it is important to note that local plans and neighbourhood plans must comply with national policy.

Apply existing policy by allowing infill as appropriate.

View that local policy should be used in addition to national policy on previously developed land in the Green Belt is noted. However it is important to note that local plans and neighbourhood plans must comply with national policy.

Page 186

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 42: Should the Council rely on national planning policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Mr Iain Hay

Mrs Patricia Wilson

Healey Parish Council

Sir/Madam

Allendale Estates

Messrs G and D Brown

Schedule of comments and responses

Mrs Katherine Brooker

Dickinson Dees LLP

Mr Richard Garland

George F White

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

450 No

National policy is not necessarily appropriate in all areas, Northumberland or otherwise and local neighbourhood plans should be used to "tweak" this as appropriate.

View that local policy should be used in addition to national policy on previously developed land in the Green Belt is noted. However it is important to note that local plans and neighbourhood plans must comply with national policy.

9662 No

If 'appropriate development' means 'governed by the standard planning criteria', then this might not be adequate to protect the rest of the adjacent green belt from intrusive visual impact, noise or smell from the 'infill' development. There might need to be additional criteria not covered by the NPPF.

8130 No

10910 No

View that local policy should be used in addition to national policy on previously developed land in the Green Belt is noted. Other environmental issues such as noise and intrusive visual impact are addressed in a suite of policies in the Natural and Historic Environment section of the Core Strategy Preferred Options consultation document. The council should not rely on national policy in relating to the treatment of previously View that local policy should be used in addition developed sites in the Green Belt as this is too restrictive for Northumberland. Where the to national policy on previously developed land in particular site may otherwise be appropriate to accommodate a greater quantum of the Green Belt is noted. The view that sustainable development than the existing situation. The guidance of paras 83 and 84 of the NPPF development should be promoted in towns, provide for review of Green Belt boundaries taking account of the need to promote villages and urban edges inset within the Green sustainable patterns of development. This includes consequences for sustainable Belt is inline with proposed policy. The majority of development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt, to towns Issues and Options responses agreed with the and villages inset in the Green Belt and to locations beyond the Green Belt. Council’s proposed approach that the Core Strategy should not identify existing or new major developed sites in the Green Belt but include them in the Green Belt and apply national policy with regard to allowing appropriate development on previously developed land. However the Council is currently updating its population and economic growth modelling to project where and how much development land is required over the plan period and this additional work will inform the policy approach, which will be subject to consultation in the summer of 2013. Disagree. Once again we consider the proposed Green Belt extension to be wholly unnecessary. However, if it were to be adopted, there needs to be consideration of the specific set of circumstances in Northumberland. Whist the change in National Planning Policy with regard to the Green Belt is noted, the purpose of the Core Strategy is to relate this to a Northumberland-specific policy which reflects the local circumstances. We have previously referred to the lack of PDL mentioned within the Core Strategy which has to be a consideration when setting Plan Policies within the County. As such, we think there is scope for a policy providing further encouragement of development on PDL sites within the Green Belt, even where there may be an impact on the openness of the Green Belt. This policy would need to be a criteria based one dependent upon the nature of development proposed. However, it should make note of the benefit of developing on PDL and that this may be sufficient in its own right to offset a degree of harm to the openness.

Page 187

View that local policy should be used in addition to national policy on previously developed land in the Green Belt is noted. The views that appropriate development may be permitted on PDL sited within the Green Belt is in line with national and proposed local policy.

Chapter 9: Green Belt

Northumberland Local Development Plan: Core Strategy Issues and Options

Question 42: Should the Council rely on national planning policy in relation to previously developed sites in the Green Belt? Full Name

Company / Organisation (if applicable)

Agent Name (if applicable)

Agent Details (if applicable)

Comment Response ID

Comments

Council's response

Mrs Ann Rutter

4382 No

The Benson report was an invaluable and independent definitive study providing a county wide evaluation of the landscape character. The report was commissioned for the region and now seems to have been ignored. We consider the Benson report should be reinforced and not devalued. AfRM welcomes the proposal to extend the Green Belt and we anticipate that this proposal will be supported by the vast majority living in Morpeth and surrounding areas. • The purpose of the Green belt is well defined so as to: • Preserve the special setting and character of Morpeth • Prevent Morpeth merging with neighbouring settlements • Assist regeneration of main settlements • Safeguard the countryside from encroachment This being so we are firmly of the view that wind turbines are wholly incompatible with the concept and purposes of a designated Green Belt. All wind turbines manufacture electricity on an industrial scale. All turbines connected to the National Grid generate income and must be regarded as ‘industrial ventures’. Furthermore, the associated road and substation infrastructure associated with wind farms have a detrimental effect on farmland and the landscape generally. Connections to the National Grid inevitably result in more structures and networks of overhead cables which are very intrusive. Since an extension to the existing Morpeth Green Belt is proposed by NCC and is likely to receive wide support, NCC must not allow this vital concept to be devalued by approving wind farms in the area of the proposed extension to the Green Belt. To do so would wholly negate the important value of the Green Belt, making nonsense of the NCC Core Strategy policies.

View that local policy should be used in addition to national policy on previously developed land in the Green Belt is noted. The comment about the Benson Report was responded to in relation to Question 38 and the comments in relation to wind turbines are also noted.

Dr. John Paul O'Neill

5870 No

The Benson report was an invaluable and independent definitive study providing a county wide evaluation of the landscape character. The report was commissioned for the region and now seems to have been ignored. We consider the Benson report should be reinforced and not devalued. AfRM welcomes the proposal to extend the Green Belt and we anticipate that this proposal will be supported by the vast majority living in Morpeth and surrounding areas. • The purpose of the Green belt is well defined so as to: • Preserve the special setting and character of Morpeth • Prevent Morpeth merging with neighbouring settlements • Assist regeneration of main settlements • Safeguard the countryside from encroachment This being so we are firmly of the view that wind turbines are wholly incompatible with the concept and purposes of a designated Green Belt. All wind turbines manufacture electricity on an industrial scale. All turbines connected to the National Grid generate income and must be regarded as ‘industrial ventures’. Furthermore, the associated road and substation infrastructure associated with wind farms have a detrimental effect on farmland and the landscape generally. Connections to the National Grid inevitably result in more structures and networks of overhead cables which are very intrusive. Since an extension to the existing Morpeth Green Belt is proposed by NCC and is likely to receive wide support, NCC must not allow this vital concept to be devalued by approving wind farms in the area of the proposed extension to the Green Belt. To do so would wholly negate the important value of the Green Belt, making nonsense of the NCC Core Strategy policies.

View that local policy should be used in addition to national policy on previously developed land in the Green Belt is noted. The comment about the Benson Report was responded to in relation to Question 38 and the comments in relation to wind turbines are also noted.

Not quite. The Client agrees that the Council should rely on the thrust of NPPF para 89 in terms of allowing limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact the purpose of including land within Green Belt. The council should weigh this up against the benefits the development would bring to regenerating the settlement. However, the old Tynedale area has little brownfield without including site such as this at Mickley Square so the County Plan needs a specific definition for at least the near urban parts to allow appropriate sites of former farm buildings or nurseries to come forward.

View that local policy should be used in addition to national policy on previously developed land in the Green Belt to include potential development on former farm buildings and nurseries is noted. The majority of Issues and Options responses agreed with the Council’s proposed approach that the Core Strategy should not identify existing or new major developed sites in the Green Belt but include them in the Green Belt and apply national policy with regard to allowing appropriate development on previously developed land. However the Council is currently updating its population and economic growth modelling to project where and how much development land is required over the plan period. This additional work will inform the policy approach, which will be subject to consultation in the summer of 2013.

Mr L Newton (and Family)

Schedule of comments and responses

Dr Malcolm Bell

903 No

Page 188

Chapter 9: Green Belt