Addendum 2 –
MetroGreen Topic Paper Consultation
Feedback
Addendum 2 – MetroGreen Topic Paper Consultation Feedback
Alongside the consultation on the Gateshead’s One Core Strategy Proposed Major
Changes Report and evidence base documents, the MetroGreen Topic Paper was
published for comments.
MetroGreen Topic Paper
The MetroGreen Topic Paper considers the key evidence which is available to inform the
future development of MetroGreen, an area which includes a number of sites located to
the west, north and east of the Metrocentre. The document also includes the emerging
vision and development objectives for the MetroGreen area, any potential constraints that
have been identified and preferred method of mitigation, infrastructure requirements to
support any development and also delivery issues.
The document considers the emerging spatial proposals as set out within the draft One
Core Strategy and sets out how planning policy for the area can be developed further to
allow for successful development of the MetroGreen area.
Preparation of the Document
We are committed to engaging with local communities and interested parties to help shape
and develop the plans. As part of the preparation of the document this report sets out the
feedback from the second of two consultations, which have allowed comments from the
local community and stakeholders to be fed into the production of the document.
Next Steps
The Council will consider all of the representations received and they will be used to inform
an area action plan for the MetroGreen area, which will sit as part of the Local
Development Framework, in line with the One Core Strategy.
Consultation Approach
The consultation on the MetroGreen Topic Paper began on the 18th July and officially
closed on the 12th October 2012. It ran in line with the consultation on the Gateshead’s
Proposed Major Changes Report to the One Core Strategy and supporting evidence base.
Comments could be made on the document via a number of methods:
At organised events attended by planning officers
By post or email
Using the online consultation system at the following web address:
https://consultation.gateshead.gov.uk/kms/dmart.aspx?noip=1&strTab=PublicDMart
494
The consultation on the Exemplar Neighbourhood Framework was also highlighted
through
the
Have
Your
Say
on
Planning
Policy
webpage
at:
www.gateshead.gov.uk/haveyoursayonplanning
Response Summary
5 comments were made relating to the MetroGreen Topic Paper as part of the
consultation. All were submitted by post or email and were made by professional
organisations. The full schedule of comments is available as part of this addendum.
What was said?
There was general support for the topic paper in that the document seeks to bring forward
previously developed land for development, and it is felt that the document is an important
first step in bringing MetroGreen forward for development.
It was welcomed by the Highways Agency that the document considers the Strategic Road
Network, as well as the links made with the One Core Strategy. The Highways Agency
note that further work is being undertaken to assess the infrastructure improvements that
have been identified, and how effective they are as part of the spatial strategy for
Gateshead. The Highways Agency also noted support for the document looking to
encourage sustainable travel without any impact upon the A1.
Persimmon Homes noted that issues such as multiple ownership, surface water and tidal
flood issues, land remediation costs, existing land uses, accessibility and traffic as
practical development issues should be included within the document and should underpin
the document. However Persimmon Homes did note that further work is required relating
to the deliverability of the sites.
Concern was noted in relation to land owned by the Church Commissioners, about the
potential location of a bridge across the Tyne to Newcastle, as well as the breakdown of
sites for different uses as set out in the document. The Church Commissioners noted
concern relating to their land the proportion of which is set out for being allocated for
infrastructure and also open space. The Church Commissioners noted that the amount of
non-residential land as allocated for their land, there would not be sufficient value
generated to contribute to the strategic infrastructure costs. The Church Commissioners
also noted several inconsistencies across the topic paper
Capital Shopping Centres Ltd commented that the longer term objectives for the
MetroGreen area should not prevent development of MetroGreen in the shorter to medium
term. In addition it was felt that the document should look to sustain and enhance the
existing assets within the area. Capital Shopping Centre noted that full consideration
should be given to the potential evolution of Metrocentre and the future role it could play in
serving as a sustainable focal point for a new mixed-use community.
495
Natural England indicated that there should be greater consideration of Green
Infrastructure within the document and the development of a green corridor along the Tyne
as part of any proposals, including how such provision will be created through developer
contributions.
496
Schedule of Comments
Comment
Surname Forename
Ref
MGTP1
MGTP2
Radley
Jordan
Ian
Peter
Organisation
Comment Summary
Highways
Agency
The Agency welcomes the consideration that has been given to the requirements
and impacts on the Strategic Road Network and linkages made to the Core
Strategy and the ingoing modelling work that is currently being undertaken. The
aim, 'enable future residents and existing workers to travel sustainably without
significantly impacting on the A1’ is particularly supported. Work is continuing to
reassess the infrastructure improvements set out in the OCS and IDP including
the improvements at the A1 Lobley Hill junction, to determine whether these
measures contribute towards delivering this aim and whether they will still provide
effective solutions, given the significant shift in the spatial strategy since the last
Infrastructure Study analysis undertaken by the Agency.
Persimmon
Homes
The vision document is an important first step in bringing forward this area for
development; however more work is needed in order to adequately demonstrate
deliverability to the satisfaction of the Inspector. It is crucial that practical
development issues underpin the strategy followed and deal commercially with
issues such as: 1) multiple ownership, 2) surface water and tidal flood issues 3)
land remediation costs, 4) existing land uses, 5) accessibility and traffic.
MGTP3
Welcomes identification of MetroGreen area for future Strategic Growth. PDL is an
ideal location for residential-led development. Also support the decision to remove
the employment allocation of a number of sites in the area. MetroGreen strategic
growth area is strongly supported due to the requirement for additional housing
over the plan period, area is highly accessible, employment opportunities are
provided at Delta Bank Road and Watermark business parks, development of area
for housing can deliver a number of community benefits and development can
Jones Lang
facilitate a publicly accessible route along the river edge. Opportunities exist to
Lasalle on
improve the allocation. It is disappointing that a disproportionate amount of Church
behalf of the
Commissioners land is indicatively identified for infrastructure works. Have serious
Church
concerns the site could become undeliverable based upon current plans.
Commissioners
Breakdown of sites for different uses also needs reconsideration. Concerned
about proposed location of potential bridge link to Newcastle. Object to the size
and location of proposed open space, almost all of this is owned by Church
Commissioners. There are a number of inconsistencies in table 27 and the overall
masterplan. By virtue of the amount of non-residential land uses proposed for the
Church Commissioners Land in the Topic Paper, insufficient value will be
generated to contribute to the strategic infrastructure costs.
MGTP4
Important that longer term objectives for the area should not stymie development
and regeneration in the short and medium terms. Initial land use proposals (pg 27)
do not represent the most effective approach for securing deliverable and viable
development in the MetroGreen area. Important that the MetroGreen strategy
sustains and enhances the existing assets in the area. Full consideration should
be given to the potential evolution of Metrocentre and the future role it could play
in serving as a sustainable focal point for a new mixed-use community.
Harbutt
Brett
NLP on behalf
CSC
498
MGTP5
Wheeler
Kate
Natural
England
1) We welcome the proposal for development which embeds Green Infrastructure
and is aligned to GI corridors identified in NCL-GH Green Infrastructure strategy.
2) We would welcome if you considered a mechanism to ensure that the Green
Infrastructure assets you aspire to create (a 30-50 m wide corridor along the Tyne
and one central green space of up to 8 ha and/or several GI corridors) will actually
be created through development contributions. The GI assets would mainly sit
outside blocks of housing development, so to create or enhance corridors/ Green
Infrastructure assets you would need S106/CIL/commuted sums. We would
strongly advise to have the principles for that (phasing, proportions/absolute
amounts) set out in the AAP or to set out and commit to another principle how
these GI assets would be created.
499