A blueprint for future development in South Tyneside has been rejected by councillors

South Tyneside Council bosses over a number of years have been working on a local plan for the borough, which would provide a framework for where new homes, businesses, shops and leisure amenities will be built up until 2040.

It also aims to ensure the right infrastructure, such as roads, health facilities and schools, is in place to support growth.

The local authority has seen several setbacks and amendments to the development blueprint over recent years, including the removal of potential housing sites following public consultation.

Recent changes to the development plan saw the percentage of South Tyneside’s Green Belt proposed for development drop from seven per cent to five per cent, as well as a decrease in housing numbers.

A crunch meeting of the borough council on Thursday (September 5) saw councillors vote on whether to move the local plan to the final stage, by submitting the document to the Secretary of State for an independent examination in public.

However, councillors voted by 26 votes to 23, with one abstention, to reject pushing forward with the plan, which was met by cheers and applause from campaigners in the public gallery.

Concerns raised at the meeting over the local plan included the destruction of trees, green spaces and Green Belt land, the loss of a community centre, an increase in traffic on the roads and a lack of affordable housing.

The latest draft included a huge proposed housing development on Green Belt land in the Fellgate area of up to 1,200 homes, which has been opposed by campaigners, with more than 2,500 signing a petition which was recently submitted to the local authority. 

Labour’s Councillor Margaret Meling, cabinet member for economic growth and transport who proposed moving forward with the plan, said the documents are “the result of five years continuous work and consultations”.

She added: “In the light of these consultations and the revisions made, we have a local plan which is considered to be sound.

“If we delay submitting our plan, we run the risk of a new national planning policy framework (NPPF) setting more than double our housing targets.

“Such a drastic modification would result in us effectively having to start the plan over again and under the revised and more demanding NPPF.

“As well as exposing us to speculative development, any delay increases the risk of government intervention, taking control of planning out of our hands, diminishing the importance of the local voice.”

Council leader councillor Tracey Dixon added there were “risks” that come with not moving forward with the plan.

She said: “If we don’t look to take control of this local plan, there is possible intervention by government.

“We want to continue to keep our green gateways coming into this borough, but if there is intervention, we will have absolutely no control.”

However numerous councillors spoke out in objection to the plan, with their statements being applauded by residents sitting in the public gallery at South Shields Town Hall.

Councillor David Francis, Green group leader on the council, said he was “not prepared to have our borough held to ransom by threats” and stressed they must listen to residents.

He added: “It feels like we’re under threat here, vote for a plan that we don’t agree with, and we know the residents don’t agree with, or face the threat of an even worse one being imposed by the Labour government.

“I’m not willing to gamble by accepting something we know doesn’t serve the residents and isn’t what they want, and isn’t what they need, just because we don’t know what might be in the Labour government’s mystery box.

“We need to listen to the voice of residents, listen to the needs of residents, and not advances from central government.”

Councillor David Kennedy, South Tyneside Alliance group leader, said the plan is “against the wishes of our residents” and fails to address concerns around affordable housing and flooding.

Councillor Paul Brenen, his group colleague, added the plan “calls for the wholesale destruction of many of our school fields, green spaces, and precious Green Belt land”.

He continued: “In my opinion, this plan is a disgraceful act of ecological and environmental vandalism that has been forced upon us by a Labour government.

“I want my children to grow up enjoying the same green spaces I did, and their children, and their children’s children.

“The legacy this local plan will leave for our children will be an urban sprawl, a metropolis, and once it’s gone it’s gone.”

Labour’s Geraldine Kilgour also objected to the plans after raising concerns over developments on Green Belt land in her ward of Fellgate and Hedworth.

She said: “We have farm fields, we have wildlife, we have flooding, everybody in the vicinity of Fellgate will remember thunder Thursday.

“I have supported my residents for around 15 years against the development on Fellgate Green Belt and I’m not stopping now.”

Green councillor Andrew Guy raised concerns over the loss of Brinkburn Community Centre and nearby playing fields and green spaces, along with the “lack of affordable housing” provided.

Click here to get the best Gazette headlines delivered to your inbox with our free newsletter

He stressed they need to go “back to the drawing board and firmly place our community in the centre of how we shape our borough for generations to come.”

His party colleague councillor Rachael Taylor added in its current form the document would “decimate our town’s Green Belt, community open spaces, mature trees”.

She said: “It must be changed to put the climate emergency at the heart of every decision.”

Councillor Joan Hamilton, South Tyneside Alliance Group member, added “building new homes will not solve the housing crisis”, with more affordable properties needed specifically, and building on Green Belt land “is the worst possible option”.

A number of Labour councillors spoke to defend the plan, including councillor Shane Smith, who argued it would “increase the housing supply in the borough” and help “allow young people to purchase their own homes”.

Councillor John McCabe argued “like any plan, it has some good points and bad points” and highlighted the “future employment and opportunities” it could provide.

He said: “I don’t think we should have this myopic view that overrides the needs of the majority, and I’m looking ahead for my children and my grandchildren, where their education is coming from.”

Meanwhile, councillor Liz McHugh argued if they don’t approve the plan they will “end up with more houses than we are proposing”.

Councillor Jim Foreman added: “If we don’t make our own decision, the Labour government, or the government inspectors, will come in and make those decisions for us.”

Had the council approved pushing forward with the local plan, the document would have gone before the Secretary of State for an independent examination in public.

This would have involved a planning inspector assessing the plan over several public hearings, with interested parties able to make representations at the formal meetings.

The planning inspector would then have published a decision on whether the local plan could be formally adopted and the inspector would also have had the power to make modifications and remove specific housing sites.

The full council meeting was broadcast on South Tyneside Council’s YouTube channel and is still available to view.