Issues and Options

**WARNING**
This webpage has been converted from Classic Google Sites to the new version of Google Sites.
All the data should be here but the layout has not been tidied up.
Links are underlined but the text is black rather than blue.

Core Strategy - Issues and Options

Return to the top level Core Strategy page

NCC Responses to Comments

The NCC has published individual replies to every response.

These are available as 20 PDFs - one for each chapter of Issue & Options.

These responses are to comments made at the Issues & Options consultation in July/August 21012.

There has been a massive shift in strategy since then and many of the comments and responses are no longer appropriate.

The latest consultation - Housing, Employment and Green Belt - completely ignores some of the majority views expressed in previous consultations.

One example is that, although the Green Belt extension proposed in Issues & Options met was welcomed by the majority, the latest consultation reduces it to a quarter of the size originally proposed.

Go to the Northumberland Local Plan webpage and expand Previous Consultations

On the NCC webpage you have to download the PDFs to your PC before you can read them.

We have posted these PDFs on our website - NCC Responses to Issues & Options Comments

From there they can be viewed without downloading.

Our webpage also contains the NCC responses to Longhorsley Parish Council comments and Ponteland residents' comments.

The contents of the rest of this page is available as a pdf View and download pdf

On September 21st we were told by the Spatial Policy and Delivery team that

"We have now reached a stage where we will be no longer adding comments to the website."

These should therefore be the final figures.

Oct 5th note: Since then, 26 comments have been added to the NCC website and these figures include those comments.

NCC Core Strategy Consultation - Summary of Answers - Oct 4th Update

On Friday September 7th NCC Planners finished processing the backlog of Core Strategy Consultation comments. We produced what we thought would be the final summary based on those comments. NCC have continued to process comments and 110 comments have been processed since September 7th. This update includes those comments.

NCC Planners have now processed 12,554 comments in total, including 1,783 comments they dated with a "Response Date" after the August 15th deadline. About half of these late comments came from about 300 people living in Ponteland who submitted answers to 3 questions after the August 15th deadline. Ponteland comments

We can not guarantee that these are the final figures - NCC Planners could continue to accept and process comments received more than a month after the deadline - but we will only update these figures if a significant number of new comments are processed.

Over 1,100 individuals, couples, families and organisations gave 11,737 answers to 105 questions and also made 817 comments. Since this includes 63 local town and parish councils it does represent a significant proportion of the NCC population of more than 310,000 - certainly enough to gauge public opinion.

The full Longhorsley Parish Council response is available on our website. Longhorsley Parish Council response

Longhorsley was well represented - we recognised 45 names on the list of contributors - including the 8 submissions made on forms provided around the village.

On average, each contributor answered about 10 questions and each question had about 111 answers. The section with the highest response level is Section 12 (commercial scale renewable energy) with 417 responses per question. About 18% of the answers have been about commercial scale renewable energy - most about windfarms. Summary of Section 12

Question 61 about the separation distances between commercial scale wind developments and residential properties got more responses than any other question - 505 - about 4½ times the average response. Of the 484 who wanted a minimum distance, 202 suggested what the minimum distance should be. Summary of Question 61

A summary of the answers to the 9 questions included in the July/August supplement to the Longhorsley Tree is included Questions in the Longhorsley Leaflet

This data has been extracted by The Editors from  northumberland.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning

While every attempt has been made to ensure these numbers are as accurate as possible, we would be astonished if all the counting was absolutely spot on. We can, however, guarantee the accuracy of the number of responses to each question.

\

Back to top

Late Comments from Ponteland Residents

About 300 people from Ponteland submitted answers to 3 questions after the deadline.

300 people attended Banks public exhibition on August 15th to see the proposals for a development of up to 500 homes on green belt land on either side of the A696 at Clickemin Farm, south east of Ponteland. (As reported in The Journal)

This comment left by a Ponteland resident explains their view.

(The comment has been given a Response Date of September 3rd)

"We understand that you have extended the time for feedback.

We are extremely concerned that we were not aware of the strategy or proposals until we received literature through our door from Banks Property Developers and attended one of their events and an event held by the Ponteland Community Partnership only last week.

We must stress that many of our neighbours, colleagues and friends are also unaware of the Core Strategy or any resulting proposals. We consider that a great deal more should be done as a matter or urgency and priority to bring these matters to the attention of local people and those who will be directly affected by the consultation and proposals."

Ponteland Residents Comments

Question 9: Do you agree with the settlements included in each tier as set out in table 5.2, table 5.3 and table 5.4?

Ponteland Answer: No - Ponteland should be Tier 2 NOT Tier 1

Number of late comments: 309

Question 10: Is the evidence listed in table 6.1 for establishing the housing requirements appropriate, are there any other approaches which should be considered?

Ponteland Answer: There is an adequate housing supply in the Ponteland area and there is no need for a new development land to be created on green belt.

Number of late comments: 297

Question 41: Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Please outline any exceptions if you consider an alternative approach would be appropriate.

Ponteland Answer: The existing green belt boundary should not be changed in order to protect the character of Ponteland and prevent urban sprawl.

Number of late comments: 302

Back to top

Summary of Answers to Section 12 (commercial scale renewable energy)

Question 58 Do you agree or disagree with the Council’s approach to contributing to the delivery of renewable energy?

Question 59 Is the proposed criteria approach for assessing renewable and low carbon energy developments in Northumberland, set out in box 1, the right one; if not what are the alternative criteria?

Many people said "I support a criterion-based approach but support alternative criteria rather than the repetition of existing ones" - some of these people answered "Yes", some "No" but most are counted under "other" because they didn't vote either way.

Question 60 Should the Core Strategy include further criteria to assess commercial scale wind energy development; are the criteria in box 2 the right ones?

are the criteria in box 2 the right ones?

197 consultees said there should be a separate policy for wind turbine development.

111 said they agreed that proposals should only be supported when located outside the most sensitive landscapes and they felt the proposed green belts be included in this.

Question 61 In the absence of new national guidance should the Core Strategy include minimum or recommended separation distances between commercial scale wind developments and residential properties and other sensitive developments?

Question 62 Should the Core Strategy:

(a) rely purely on a criteria based approach for determining planning applications for the renewable energy and low carbon sector; or

(b) identify broad areas of opportunity or specific locations for the renewable energy and low carbon sector to support a criteria based approach?

180 consultees said they wanted NCC to adopt the criterion based approach which N&NS puts forward. Back to top

Summary of Answers to Question 61 (separation distances)

QUESTION 61 was In the absence of new national guidance should the Core Strategy include minimum or recommended separation distances between commercial scale wind developments and residential properties and other sensitive developments?

Question 8 Do you agree with the ‘development principles’ set out in table 5.1, if not what should the principles be?

[NB Table 5.1 said Tier 3 settlements should have "small-scale development"]

Question 9 Do you agree with the settlements included in each tier as set out in table 5.2, table 5.3 and table 5.4?

[NB Table 5.4 said Longhorsley is a Tier 3 settlement in South East Northumberland]

We can't easily count what Longhorsley residents said - only the 7 who disagreed needed to mention Longhorsley, the ones that agreed just said "Yes".

Question 23 Should the Core Strategy include a criteria based policy to guide the provision of housing sites and the supply of accommodation which is particularly well suited to older people and people with disabilities?

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?

[NB Option 2 is further north than option 1]

Question 41 Do you agree with the proposed treatment of settlements within the existing and proposed Northumberland Green Belt? Please outline any exceptions if you consider an alternative approach would be appropriate.

[NB Tier 3 settlements will either be inset (become an island) or be included in the Green Belt]

Of the 10 consultees that offered an opinion about Longhorsley being inset (become an island) or be included in the Green Belt (washed over) 2 wanted Longhorsley inset and 8 washed over.

Question 58 Do you agree or disagree with the Council’s approach to contributing to the delivery of renewable energy?

Question 68 Accessibility and public transport. We think there are no other options for this issue, do you agree with this suggested approach?

Question 91 Is the suggested Sports Facility Hierarchy identified in figure 17.5 appropriate?

[NB Tier 3 settlements should have a playing pitch with a toilet on site.]

Should it be included in the Core Strategy to guide future playing pitch provision?

Back to top

Core Strategy - Issues and Options Documents

This webpage contains the Core Strategy leaflet that was distributed with the Longhorsley Tree.

It also contains copies of some of the NCC documents.

NCC documents 0 - 6 were included in the CD handed out at the "Meet the Planners" meeting on June 20th.

Paper copies of NCC documents 6 - 8 were also distributed at that meeting.

To download a document - View the document and then [File] [Download] Back to top