Northumberland Local Plan Core Strategy. Green Belt Settlement Assessments Published December 2014

Transcription

1 Northumberland Local Plan Core Strategy Green Belt Settlement Assessments Published December 2014

2 Contents 1. Introduction 2 2. National planning policy context 4 3. Northumberland Planning Policy Context 5 4. Green Belt Review Methodology 7 5. Settlement Assessments South East Delivery Area 9 Seaton Valley including Seaton Delaval, Holywell, Seghill, New Hartley and Seaton Sluice 9 Cramlington including East Cramlington, Hartford Bridge and south part of Stannington Settlement Assessments Central Delivery Area 38 Hexham including Acomb 38 Prudhoe including Mickley Square, Ovingham, Ovington, Horsley and Wylam 53 Morpeth including Pegswood, Longhirst, Hebron, Mitford, Tranwell Woods St Mary s Hospital, north part of Stannington, Stannington Station, Nedderton, Hepscott and Bothal 66 Corbridge 95 Ponteland including Medburn 106 1

3 1. Introduction 1.1 The Council has previously consulted on the methodology for reviewing Green Belt boundaries ( (references EB06, EB07 and EB08) alongside the Core Strategy Preferred Options Stage 2 document (2013). This Green Belt review initially focused on the Green Belt around Main Towns and Service Centres. 1.2 The need to undertake a more comprehensive review of the Green Belt has come about following feedback on the Core Strategy Preferred Options (stage 2) document, as well as the approach that Planning Inspectors have been taking to Core Strategy examinations. The Green Belt review methodology has been updated to reflect feedback and recent approaches elsewhere. The Northumberland Green Belt Review Methodology November 2014 can be viewed here This document presents the assessments that have been carried out for the Main Towns and Service Centres within the Green Belt using the refined methodology presented in the document Northumberland Green Belt Review Methodology. A separate document has been produced covering the settlements below the Main Towns and Service Centres (Small Settlements and the Green Belt) which can be viewed by following this link Following the methodology has resulted in a number of the Main Towns and Service Centres assessments including a number of the smaller settlements and the land around them. These settlements are also included in the Small Settlements and the Green Belt document. The Green Belt Appendix brings all the assessments together into one document and includes the comprehensive mapping work. 1.5 It is essential that the emerging Core Strategy is informed by wide community engagement. The consultation on the current version of the Core Strategy is taking place from 12 December 2014 to 11 February Comments on the Full Draft Plan, including this document, can also be submitted these dates. The Core Strategy Full Draft Plan can be viewed on the Council s website along with the Green Belt Methodology, the Green Belt Settlement Reviews and the other documents that the Council is seeking feedback on. 1.6 Comments can be submitted by or post and should be directed to: Planning and Housing Policy Team Northumberland County Council County Hall Morpeth NE61 2EF PlanningStrategy@northumberland.gov.uk 2

4 1.8 Feedback received on this document will help inform the detailed Green Belt boundaries which will be subject to further consultation. The key stages for preparing the Core Strategy are set out below. Date June to July 2015 Winter 2015 Spring 2016 Summer 2016 Milestone Consultation on Pre-Submission Core Strategy Submission Consultation Examination Adoption 3

5 2. National Planning Policy Context 2.1 Nationally, the Government attaches great importance to the Green Belt and through the NPPF sets out the policy approach to Green Belt. The NPPF states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open, and that a key attribute of land in the Green Belt is its openness. 2.2 The NPPF sets out the five purposes of the Green Belt, which are to: check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; prevent the neighbouring towns from merging into one another; assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. 2.3 National policy requires that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. Where it is considered necessary to alter Green Belt boundaries, this should be undertaken through the preparation or review of Local Plans. New boundaries need to have permanence, enduring beyond the plan period. When drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries account should be taken of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development. In doing so, 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 should be considered. 2.4 The NPPF explains that when defining boundaries, local planning authorities should: ensure consistency with the Local Plan strategy for meeting identified requirements for sustainable development; not include land which it is unnecessary to keep permanently open; 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 the safeguarded land is not allocated for development at the present time. Planning permission for the permanent development of safeguarded land should only be granted following a local plan review which proposes the development; 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. 2.5 The NPPF also provides guidance on the approach to be taken to smaller settlements in the Green Belt. If it is necessary to prevent development in a village, primarily due to the important contribution which the open character of the village makes to the openness of the Green Belt, the village should be included within the Green Belt. Should the character of a village need to be protected for other reasons, other means should be used, such as conservation area or normal development management policies and the village should be excluded from the Green Belt. 4

6 3. Northumberland Planning Policy Context 3.1 Through the Core Strategy the Council is required to define the strategic approach to the Tyne and Wear Green Belt that lies within Northumberland. As explained above, the NPPF requires that boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, and if changes are required, this should be undertaken through the preparation of the Core Strategy. Policy 20 of the Core Strategy Full Draft Plan sets out the strategic policy approach to the Tyne and Wear Green Belt within Northumberland which is to: a) Safeguard the countryside from encroachment b) Check the unrestricted sprawl of Tyne and Wear c) Prevent the merging of: Newcastle upon Tyne with Ponteland, Newcastle Airport or Cramlington; and North Tyneside with Cramlington or Blyth; d) Preserve the setting and special character of Hexham, Corbridge and Morpeth e) Prevent Morpeth merging with neighbouring settlements; and f) Assist in the regeneration of settlements in South East Northumberland beyond the Green Belt. 3.2 Evidence work undertaken to inform the Core Strategy highlighted that many of the existing Green Belt boundaries around settlements may not provide sufficient capacity to accommodate the level of growth required to deliver objectively assessed housing and economic development needs. It was therefore identified in the Core Strategy Preferred Options (Stage 1) consultation document (February 2013) that it would be necessary to review Green Belt boundaries, to provide the Main Towns and Service Centres with sufficient space for future economic and/or residential development. In order to identify the most appropriate locations currently within the Green Belt to be released for future development, a Green Belt Review methodology based on best practice from elsewhere was consulted upon alongside the Preferred Options (stage 2) consultation document in October Following feedback this methodology has been further refined. 3.3 This assessment process has: Considered the level of land required to deliver the proposed housing numbers/employment land; Identified and mapped relevant constraints; Defined sectors and options for appropriate locations for future development; Undertaken an assessment of the sectors and potential locations for development against the established purposes of Green Belt; Undertaken a more detailed land parcel area assessment; and Refined options and identified a preferred location. 3.4 The use of this methodology has ensured consistency in approach in relation to the Green Belt review. The preferred broad locations for localised Green Belt review for the settlements of Hexham, Prudhoe, and Ponteland were identified within the Preferred Options (stage 2) consultation document. More detailed work has been undertaken on the precise Green Belt boundary changes in relation to these settlements and the outcome of this work is presented in the Core Strategy Full Draft Plan. 5

7 3.5 Part of the evidence base behind the Green Belt policy approach in the Core Strategy is contained within two documents. The Northumberland Green Belt Review Methodology describes the methodology that is being followed to identify the most important areas of Green Belt which should be protected and broad areas to be removed from the Green Belt to accommodates the development required to deliver the strategy. This document sets out the detailed assessment of the Main Towns and Service Centres using the Green Belt methodology. The third document that has been prepared on the Green Belt is seeking views on the approach to the smaller settlements within the Green Belt. The three documents can be viewed here 6

8 4. Green Belt Review Methodology 4.1 The document Northumberland Green Belt Review Methodology outlines the approach that has been taken to reviewing the Green Belt boundaries. Section 3 above provides a summary of the approach. The methodology involves 11 steps which are summarised in Table 3. Table 1: Steps 1-11 from the published Northumberland Green Belt Review Methodology Step 1 Strategic Land Review: establish land availability to meet future development requirements For Main Towns and Service Step 2 Constraints mapping: identification and mapping of relevant constraints individually and collectively to show total constraint Centres results of these steps were originally published in Step 3 Divide settlement into broad areas (e.g. N, E, S and W) dependent on size, structure, form and characteristics Northumberland Local Plan Core Strategy, Strategic Land Step 4 Broad Area Assessment: assess each area against the constraints mapping and purposes of the Green Belt Review. October 2013 with the Core Strategy Preferred Step 5 Discount options following broad area assessment Options for Housing, Employment and Green Belt Consultation Document Step 6 a. Land parcel area identification b. Land parcel area field study c. Land parcel area assessment d. Detailed constraint mapping Step 7 Discount options following assessment of parcels of land Step 8 Identify and consult on Preferred Option for Green Belt boundary Step 9 Prepare and finalise detailed Green Belt boundaries Step 10 Consult on detailed Green Belt boundaries Step 11 Adopt Green Belt boundary 4.2 The following sections provide a summary of this work for each of the Main Towns and Service Centres in the Green Belt. For each settlement, a brief overview of the assessment is given together with the Green Belt assessment matrix, the constraints matrix and a summary map. Feedback is being sought on the detailed assessments set out in the matrices on both the assessment against Green Belt purposes and the environmental constraints identified. 7

9 4.3 The matrices use a traffic light system: Key to purposes of Green Belt matrix: High contribution to Green Belt purposes Medium contribution to Green Belt purposes Low contribution to Green Belt purposes Key to constraints matrix: High level of constraints Medium level of constraints Low level of constraints 8

10 5. Settlement Assessments South East Delivery Area Seaton Valley including Seaton Delaval, Holywell, Seghill, New Hartley and Seaton Sluice 5.1 Steps 1-2 of the Green Belt Review methodology were carried out in the Northumberland Local Plan Core Strategy, Strategic Land Review October It indicates the following regarding the Green Belt, drawn up in the 1990s: It contains Seaton Delaval / Holywell very tightly, abutting the built up area, with the exception of some undeveloped white land to the north and north-east at Wheatridge and a strip alongside Proctor and Gamble s factory in the south-west. There is continuous development between Seaton Delaval and Holywell village in ribbon form and the Green Belt does not divide the two. Seghill too is closely surrounded by Green Belt, although some land allocated for employment uses towards the north of the village has never been developed. A relatively narrow strip of Green Belt separates Seghill from Seaton Delaval. A wider area of Green Belt separates the settlement from safeguarded land adjoining the east side of Cramlington. However this is still a relatively narrow strip in the context of a larger town such as Cramlington. New Hartley is tightly surrounded by the Green Belt, except at its eastern end. The railway forms the Green Belt boundary in the south and east and land between the railway and the built up area in the east remains undeveloped white land, although is the subject of a planning application for 286 dwellings pending at the time of writing. There is a very narrow strip of Green Belt separating New Hartley from Seaton Delaval (the Double Row area). The built-up area of Seaton Sluice/Old Hartley is surrounded by Green Belt with the exception of some stretches of the seafront. The settlement is well separated from the nearest settlements by Green Belt. 5.2 In terms of constraints, there is a large Conservation Area associated with Seaton Delaval Hall. These constraints along with localised flooding issues and the fact that waste water from the area is treated at Howden Wastewater Treatment Works (in North Tyneside), which is currently subject to monitoring and assessment to confirm its long- term capacity, limit the scope for additional growth other than previously identified sites to the east of New Hartley and to the north of Seaton Delaval. 5.3 It is anticipated that development needs in the Seaton Valley can be met during and beyond the Plan Period without the need to release Green Belt land. However this will be subject to community engagement. 9

11 Table 1: Matrix to assess Seaton Valley Land Parcel Areas (LPAs) assessment against purposes of Green Belt SEATON VALLEY LPA (1) Check unrestricted sprawl of large builtup (2) Prevent neighbouring towns merging into (3) Assist in safeguarding the countryside from (4) Preserve the setting and special character Ref LPA name areas one another encroachment of historic towns SV01 Seghill South The boundary line following the edge of Seghill is somewhat weak throughout much of its length, consisting mostly of back garden fences. There are several opportunities to access this land for further houses from the B1322 and the existing estates, when considered alongside risk of leap-frog development from the Tyne-Wear conurbation, it must be concluded that the LPA plays a strong role at preventing sprawl. SV02 Seghill South-East - Quarry The LPA lies in the heart of an area of Green Belt separating Seghill and Seaton Delaval and in this sense, it indirectly contributes to preventing their There is no nearby settlement in this direction from Seghill. The nearest is Backworth in North Tyneside. There are distant views of this exposed edge of Seghill from a short distance north of Backworth but additional development in the LPA would not weaken the perceived separation and could strengthen the boundary e.g. through structure planting. Notwithstanding the fact that significant building would be unlikely given the past use as a landfill site, development here, (whether in isolation or in association with 10 The exposed edge of Seghill and the openness of the landscape mean that this area of countryside has already acquired an urban feel, Additional development could add to this slightly but may not have an overall negative effect due to the possibility of a stronger, planted edge to the settlement. While urban influences are strong, this LPA area will soon be restored to countryside, and, given the raised level of the land, will be visible from both settlements. The LPA does not contribute to this purpose The LPA does not contribute to this purpose Conclusion Balance of contributions to purposes (1) to (4) LPA SV01 Medium contribution to Green Belt purposes lack of nearby settlements (in terms of merger) and absence of any impact on historic town setting are balanced by a high risk that development could easily sprawl out from Seghill (in the absence of this protection) and the modest risk of further reduction in the rural feel of the LPA. LPA SV02 Despite the modest role in restricting sprawl it makes a very high contribution to Green Belt purposes overall as it is a key area of countryside

12 SEATON VALLEY LPA Ref LPA name SV03 Seaton Delaval South-West (1) Check unrestricted sprawl of large builtup areas sprawl, although this is tempered by the fact that it does not directly adjoin either village and development is almost certainly prevented through past uses. There is a reasonably good degree of containment of the edges of Seaton Delaval and Seghill, both of which abut this LPA, due to the Seaton Burn and various tree belts. Nonetheless, there are some opportunities for Seaton Delaval to spread into open areas close to the Proctor and Gamble plant. SV04 Seghill East The boundary line following the edge of Seaton Delaval is (2) Prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another adjacent LPAs that do adjoin the villages of Seaton Delaval and Seghill) would create a strong perception of merger between the two villages. This is a key part of the Green Belt separating Seaton Delaval and Seghill and lies alongside the main road that links the two. As such, there is a strong chance of ribbon development and/or some creep of development from Seaton Delaval, causing the separation between the two, already small, to reduce further. The Green Belt therefore plays a strong role in this respect. This is a key part of the Green Belt separating Seaton (3) Assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment It is therefore likely to make a strong (perhaps the strongest) contribution towards the value of this area of countryside. This is a key part of the countryside separating Seghill and Seaton Delaval. It is highly visible from the two village edges and from the main road linking the two. This is a key part of the countryside separating Seghill and (4) Preserve the setting and special character of historic towns The LPA does not contribute to this purpose The LPA does not contribute to this purpose Conclusion Balance of contributions to purposes (1) to (4) within a narrow strip separating two villages. LPA SV03 Despite the modest role in restricting sprawl it makes a very high contribution to Green Belt purposes overall as it is a key area of countryside within a narrow strip separating two villages. LPA SV04 Key role of the LPA in separating two villages, 11

13 SEATON VALLEY LPA Ref LPA name SV05 Seaton Delaval South (1) Check unrestricted sprawl of large builtup areas somewhat weak throughout much of its length, with back garden fences and allotments merging into the open countryside. By contrast, the edge of Seghill is much more strongly contained by the Seaton Burn valley. There are opportunities to access this land for further houses from Mares Close. Overall, and given the proximity of the two settlements it adjoins, the Green Belt in this LPA contributes greatly to preventing sprawl. Containment provided by the Seaton Burn towards north must be balanced against the possible loss of the wide public open space between the built-up area and (2) Prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another Delaval and Seghill and lies alongside the main road that links the two, as well as Mares Close. As such, there is a strong chance of ribbon development and/or some creep of development from Seaton Delaval, causing the separation between the two, already small, to reduce further. The Green Belt therefore plays a strong role in this respect. There is no nearby settlement in this direction from Seaton Delaval / Holywell. The nearest is Earsdon. While there are some distant views from the raised part of Earsdon (3) Assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment Seaton Delaval. It is highly visible from the two village edges and from the main road linking the two. It also provides the setting for the Grade II Listed Church of the Holy Trinity and vicarage, which lie in the heart of the LPA alongside Mares Close. This area of countryside is highly visible, especially from the south. It has a rural character, unusual this close to Tyneside. Development in this LPA would increase the (4) Preserve the setting and special character of historic towns The LPA does not contribute to this purpose Conclusion Balance of contributions to purposes (1) to (4) preventing sprawl and preserving countryside settings means that it makes a high contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt. LPA SV05 High contribution to Green Belt purposes lack of impact on historic towns is outweighed by encroachment on a key area of countryside 12

14 SEATON VALLEY LPA Ref LPA name SV06 Seaton Delaval South-East (1) Check unrestricted sprawl of large builtup areas the Burn. While this is a small part of the overall area, it results in a sprawl risk at the low end of medium. It must also be balanced against the possible leapfrogging of development from the nearby edge of the Tyneside conurbation. Containment provided by the Seaton Burn towards north must be balanced against the possible leapfrogging of development from the nearby edge of the Tyneside conurbation. (2) Prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another towards Seaton Delaval / Holywell the wooded Holywell Dene helps conceal the settlement (as well as containing it). Having said this, the LPA is large overall and offers opportunities for ribbon development on the A192. There is no nearby settlement in this direction from Seaton Delaval / Holywell. The nearest is Earsdon. While there are some distant views from the raised part of Earsdon towards Seaton Delaval / Holywell the wooded Holywell Dene helps conceal the settlement (as well as containing it). Having said this, the LPA is large overall and offers opportunities for ribbon development on the A (3) Assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment encroachment on key countryside areas and impact on the rural setting of the Earsdon and Holywell conservation areas. This area of countryside is highly visible, especially from the south. It has a rural character, unusual this close to Tyneside. Development in this LPA would increase the encroachment on key countryside areas and impact on the rural setting of the Earsdon and Holywell conservation areas. (4) Preserve the setting and special character of historic towns The LPA does not contribute to this purpose Conclusion Balance of contributions to purposes (1) to (4) that has a rural character and provides a setting for conservation areas. There is a modest risk of some sprawl and ribbon development between settlements. LPA SV06 High contribution to Green Belt purposes lack of impact on historic towns is outweighed by encroachment on a key area of countryside that has a rural character and provides a setting for conservation areas. There is a modest risk of some sprawl and ribbon development between settlements. SV07 Holywell Long settlement No significant Development in this The LPA does not LPA SV07

15 SEATON VALLEY LPA Ref LPA name (1) Check unrestricted sprawl of large builtup areas edge with numerous opportunities for accesses to allow settlement extension into the open countryside. Risk of leapfrog development from Tyneside. Only containment would be in the north (the Avenue) and south (Holywell Dene). SV08 Seaton Delaval East Fragmented settlement edge at Seaton Delaval with opportunities for accesses to allow settlement extension into the open countryside. Risk of leapfrog development from Tyneside. Containment of New Hartley provided by railway line and some containment in the south (from the Avenue) (2) Prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another settlement in this direction from Seaton Delaval / Holywell. However, development towards the SW of area, close to the north end of Holywell village, could be seen as adding to the coalescence between Holywell and Seaton Delaval. No significant settlement in this direction from Seaton Delaval, south of railway line. However, development towards the north of area, close to the railway extending into the Green Belt area, would lead to coalescence between New Hartley and Seaton Delaval. (3) Assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment LPA would significantly increase the long-term risk of urbanisation in the countryside and impact on the setting of the ornamental Avenue, leading to Seaton Delaval Hall, and of Holywell village conservation area. The Green Belt has served a strong purpose of protecting this area of countryside. The Wheatridge Park development is gradually extending over safeguarded land. Once complete, there may be pressure to extend development further and the Green Belt would serve to safeguard the countryside from encroachment in this area.. Development in this LPA, especially towards the south, could adversely affect (4) Preserve the setting and special character of historic towns contribute to this purpose The LPA does not contribute to this purpose Conclusion Balance of contributions to purposes (1) to (4) High contribution to Green Belt purposes - stemming development from encroaching into very open, readily accessible areas of countryside, and so preventing the compromising of the settings of parts of the Seaton Delaval Estate and Holywell village. LPA SV08 High contribution to Green Belt purposes - stemming development from encroaching into very open, readily accessible areas of countryside, and so prevent the compromising of the settings of parts of Seaton Delaval and preventing coalescence of Seaton Delaval and New Hartley. 14

16 SEATON VALLEY LPA Ref LPA name SV09 New Hartley North- West (1) Check unrestricted sprawl of large builtup areas Some containment provided by the design of New Hartley s northern estates with few opportunities to access areas to the north. Containment also given by woodland north of the open part of Bristol Street, although area between New Hartley and Double Row and parts of Double Row itself provide ready access to open land. At the NE corner, the S Newsham bypass helps to contain the further spread of Blyth. Nonetheless, the area is vulnerable to leapfrog development from Tyneside and the Green Belt high risk of sprawl (2) Prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another This includes the area dividing Seaton Delaval and New Hartley. While the LPA straddles the area between Blyth and New Hartley, these settlements are distant from each other and risk of merger low. However, overall risk is high due to the role played in dividing Seaton Delaval and New Hartley. 15 (3) Assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment the setting of the ornamental Avenue, leading to Seaton Delaval Hall. The countryside in this area does already possess an urbanised character in those parts close to settlements. It does not provide the setting for any key landmarks. There would need to be a large southward development from Blyth or northern from New Hartley to create a significant incursion However, it is open and visibility across the area is high. In addition, the small area around New Hartley Pond and Bristol Street is highly vulnerable. Overall risk medium. (4) Preserve the setting and special character of historic towns The LPA does not contribute to this purpose Conclusion Balance of contributions to purposes (1) to (4) LPA SV09 High contribution to Green Belt purposes due to its role in keeping Seaton Delaval and New Hartley separated and the vulnerability to sprawl / leapfrog development. SV10 New Hartley North- While there is a There no risk of The woodland and The LPA does not LPA SV10

17 SEATON VALLEY LPA Ref LPA name West (1) Check unrestricted sprawl of large builtup areas small risk of sprawl onto this area from the neighbouring part of New Hartley, the topography of the area provides a degree of containment. SV11 Holywell Dene The Dene itself would not allow development for a number of reasons and forms a very good barrier against sprawl into most of the LPA. However, a small area close to the mouth of the Seaton Burn could be vulnerable. SV12 Seaton Sluice West There is a risk of sprawl, extending back (westwards and southwards) from Seaton Sluice (towards the north of the LPA). Considerable risk of leapfrog development from conurbation. (2) Prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another merger with any settlement from extension of the village onto this land. There is low risk of development here causing merger of settlements, although there is a small risk that there could be infilling of the narrow neck of land between Seaton Sluice and Old Hartley. There is low risk of development here causing merger of settlements, although there is a small risk that there could be infilling of the narrow neck of land between Seaton Sluice and Old Hartley. (3) Assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment slightly raised nature of this area means that it contributes to the local countryside in a way that is proportionately greater than its relatively small extent would suggest. Development in this LPA would be a serious encroachment into high quality open countryside, which is all part of the Seaton Delaval Estate Conservation Area. Development in this LPA would be a serious encroachment into high quality open countryside in the immediate setting of Seaton Delaval Hall and its associated structures, as well as the open area where Holywell Dene meets (4) Preserve the setting and special character of historic towns contribute to this purpose The LPA does not contribute to this purpose The LPA does not contribute to this purpose Conclusion Balance of contributions to purposes (1) to (4) Medium contribution to Green Belt purposes with only modest risk of sprawl and encroachment and no risk of merger. LPA SV11 Despite the modest contribution to preventing sprawl or merger, this area makes a strong contribution to open countryside and important settings. LPA SV12 Despite the modest contribution to preventing merger, this area makes a strong contribution to open countryside and important settings, as well as preventing sprawl. 16

18 SEATON VALLEY LPA Ref LPA name (1) Check unrestricted sprawl of large builtup areas SV13 Hartley East There is a risk of development filling this area in. Considerable risk of leapfrog development from conurbation. SV14 Hartley Links While development on the dunes is unlikely to be feasible, buildings would amount to sprawl from the two settlements at either end of the dunes. There is some pressure for coastal facilities. SV15 South Newsham While the A1061 serves to contain the southward spread of (2) Prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another There is low risk of development here causing merger of settlements, although areas of Whitley Bay are within sight. There is low risk of development here causing merger between settlements, although the two settlements can be seen from each other. Additional beach facilities in the form of built structures could cause a gradual ribbon development feel. There is low risk of development here causing merger (3) Assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment the coast. Development in this LPA would be a serious encroachment into a key area of open countryside in a very exposed cliff top location an area which also contributes to the setting of St Mary s Island, and Seaton Sluice harbour and is within the Seaton Delaval Hall Conservation Area. Development in this LPA would be a serious encroachment into a key area of open coast and be highly visible. Development in this LPA could be a serious encroachment into a (4) Preserve the setting and special character of historic towns The LPA does not contribute to this purpose The LPA does not contribute to this purpose The LPA does not contribute to this purpose Conclusion Balance of contributions to purposes (1) to (4) LPA SV13 Despite the modest contribution to preventing merger, this area makes a strong contribution to open countryside and coast, very important settings, as well as preventing sprawl. LPA SV14 Despite the modest contribution to preventing merger and sprawl, this area makes a strong contribution to the open coast. LPA SV15 Despite the modest contribution to 17

19 SEATON VALLEY LPA Ref LPA name (1) Check unrestricted sprawl of large builtup areas Blyth to a certain extent, land to the south could be accessed. New Hartley is beyond the railway line. However, at the north end of Seaton Sluice, there is opportunity for the village to extend into this LPA. Overall, therefore it makes a high contribution to checking sprawl. (2) Prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another between settlements, although the three settlements that abut the area can be seen from each other. Links Road poses the strongest threat of ribbon development. (3) Assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment key area of open countryside that provides a setting not only for the coast but for Seaton Delaval Hall. (4) Preserve the setting and special character of historic towns Conclusion Balance of contributions to purposes (1) to (4) preventing merger, this area makes a strong contribution to open coastal countryside and preventing sprawl, especially from Seaton Sluice. 18

20 Table 2: Matrix to assess Seaton Valley Land Parcel Areas (LPAs) constraints mapping SEATON VALLEY LPA Label/Name Copy of Green Belt purposes Primary constraints Secondary constraints local matrix conclusions column) LPA SV01 Medium contribution to Green Belt purposes lack of nearby settlements (in terms of merger) and absence of any impact on historic town setting are balanced by a high risk that development could sprawl out from Seghill (in the absence of this protection) and the modest risk of further reduction in the rural feel of the LPA. LPA SV02 Despite the modest role in restricting sprawl it makes a very high contribution to Green Belt purposes overall as it is a key area of countryside within a narrow strip separating two villages. LPA SV03 Despite the modest role in restricting sprawl it makes a very high contribution to Green Belt purposes overall as it is a key area of national designations designations Hydrological Nil Nil EA Flood Zones 2&3 (strand along a stream that runs into the Seaton Burn at E edge of LPA) Surface water Shallow 1:200, Deep 1:200 and Shallow 1:30 (various small areas occupying perhaps 10 to 15% of LPA) Sewer flood risk (small area close to Seghill) Nil Nil, (although ancient seminatural woodland abuts the eastern edge in one place). 19 EA Flood Zones 2&3 (strand along the Seaton Burn at N edge of LPA) Surface water Shallow 1:200, Deep 1:200 and Shallow 1:30 (fragments towards S of LPA) Sewer flood risk (none in LPA) Nil Nil EA Flood Zones 2&3 (wide strip along the Seaton Burn towards S of LPA) Surface water Shallow 1:200, Shallow 1:30 and Deep 1:200 (areas towards north LPA) Detailed constraints conclusions While there are no designations, the floodrelated constraints, when taken together, suggest a modest level of caution is required. High constraints level The former landfill use across the whole LPA means that there is a high level of constraint in spite of the relatively low flood risk and the absence of designations. Despite having no designations, the constraints level can be said to be at the high end of medium, due to the combined coverage of

21 SEATON VALLEY LPA Label/Name Copy of Green Belt purposes matrix conclusions column) countryside within a narrow strip separating two villages. LPA SV04 Key role of the LPA in separating two villages, preventing sprawl and preserving countryside settings means that it makes a high contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt. LPA SV05 High contribution to Green Belt purposes lack of impact on historic towns is outweighed by encroachment on a key area of countryside that has a rural character and provides a setting for conservation areas. There is a modest risk of some sprawl and ribbon development between settlements. LPA SV06 High contribution to Green Belt purposes lack of Primary constraints national designations Listed Buildings (Holy Trinity Church and neighbouring vicarage both Grade II) right in the centre of LPA and highly visible. Listed Buildings (Footbridge over Seaton Burn - Grade II). Holywell Dene ancient woodland (extreme N) Holywell Dene ancient woodland (extreme N) Secondary constraints local designations Nil (although a LWGS abuts the north edge of the LPA at one point) Semi-natural woodland runs along Holywell Dene towards the north of LPA. Holywell Conservation crosses into the LPA at NE corner. Semi-natural woodland runs along Holywell Dene towards the N of LPA. 20 Hydrological Sewer flood risk (most of LPA all of that not in flood zones 2 or 3) EA Flood Zones 2&3 (west edge of LPA) Surface water Shallow 1:200, Shallow 1:30 and Deep 1:200 (various areas throughout LPA and strands along watercourses including SW edge of LPA) Sewer flood risk (whole of LPA) EA Flood Zones 2&3 (strand along Seaton Burn at N edge and some areas at S edge, but only taking up a small part of LPA overall) Surface water Shallow 1:200, Shallow 1:30 and Deep 1:200 (isolated small areas throughout LPA and narrow strand along Seaton Burn on N edge of LPA) Sewer flood risk (fringes on N and S edges) EA Flood Zones 2&3 (strand along Seaton Burn at N edge, but only taking up a v small part of LPA overall) Detailed constraints conclusions the different forms of flood risk. The LPA provides the setting for Holy Trinity Church and the vicarage in their copse, as well as the setting of the LWGS. This, along with due to the different forms of flood risk, bring the constraints level towards the high end of medium. Includes primary and secondary designations but, even cumulatively, these do not dominate the area. Even so, they do provide a barrier to expansion of Seaton Delaval / Holywell southwards. Some flood related constraints, while also localised, do have a similar barrier effect along the southern edge of the village(s). Includes primary and secondary designations,

22 SEATON VALLEY LPA Label/Name Copy of Green Belt purposes matrix conclusions column) impact on historic towns is outweighed by encroachment on a key area of countryside that has a rural character and provides a setting for conservation areas. There is a modest risk of some sprawl and ribbon development between settlements. LPA SV07 High contribution to Green Belt purposes - stemming development from encroaching into very open, readily accessible areas of countryside, and so preventing the compromising of the settings of parts of the Seaton Delaval Estate and Holywell village LPA SV08 High contribution to Green Belt purposes - stemming development from encroaching into very open, readily accessible areas of countryside, and so preventing the compromising Primary constraints national designations Listed Buildings (Holywell Manor House Grade II) in extreme SW of LPA. Holywell Pond SSSI Holywell Dene ancient woodland (extreme S) Registered Park and Garden along Avenue (extreme north) Registered Park and Garden along Avenue (extreme south) (NB New Hartley Pond SSSI abuts N side) Secondary constraints local designations Holywell Conservation crosses into the LPA at NE corner. Seaton Delaval Estate and Holywell Village Conservation Areas. Holywell Pond Local Nature Reserve Seaton Delaval Estate Conservation Area extreme S. Hydrological Surface water Shallow 1:200, Shallow 1:30 and Deep 1:200 (narrow strands N-S and along Seaton Burn on N edge of LPA with other isolated pockets) Sewer flood risk (extreme fringes on N and S edges only) EA Flood Zones 2&3 limited to extreme south (Holywell Dene) Surface water Shallow 1:200, Shallow 1:30 and Deep 1:200 (Holywell Pond and numerous pockets across LPA) Sewer flood risk (whole of LPA) EA Flood Zones 2&3 (Nil) Surface water Shallow 1:200, Shallow 1:30 and Deep 1:200 (various small areas) Sewer flood risk throughout LPA Detailed constraints conclusions small parts within EA Flood Zones 2&3, some susceptibility to surface water and v small risk of sewer flooding. However, the main constraint is a former tip use that takes up around one third of the area towards its SE corner. While there are primary and secondary designations (with Holywell pond SSSI being central and dominant) and while the sewer flooding issue covers whole area, there are nevertheless areas closer to the settlement that would have low constraints. Therefore overall assessment is medium constraints. The need to retain the setting of the Registered Park and Garden/ conservation area of the Avenue, plus the flood realetd issues mean that the overall assessment of 21

23 SEATON VALLEY LPA Label/Name Copy of Green Belt purposes matrix conclusions column) of the settings of parts of the Seaton Delaval and preventing coalescence of Seaton Delaval and New Hartley. LPA SV09 High contribution to Green Belt purposes - due to its role in keeping Seaton Delaval and New Hartley separated and the vulnerability to sprawl / leapfrog development. Primary constraints national designations Secondary constraints local designations Hydrological New Hartley Pond SSSI Nil EA Flood Zones 2&3 (narrow strand along Meggie s Burn towards N of LPA) Surface water Shallow 1:200, Shallow 1:30 and Deep 1:200 (3 E-W strips including Meggie s Burn + other small areas) Sewer flood risk (area in S half of LPPA) Detailed constraints conclusions constraints is medium. The New Hartley SSSI prevents development in much of the vulnerable area between the two villages. Elsewhere the constrainst (due to flood issues) are realtively dispersed and low. Overall medium. LPA SV10 Medium contribution to Green Belt purposes with only modest risk of sprawl and encroachment and no risk of merger. LPA SV11 Despite the modest contribution to preventing sprawl or merger, this area makes a strong contribution to countryside and important settings. Nil Listed Buildings (Primrose Cottage) Ancient woodland along Holywell Dene NB setting of Seaton Delaval Hall (being part of the Conservation Area) NB close to SPA on coast. Nil (NB abuts Seaton Delaval Conservation Area but this is separated by the railway line). LWGS along Holywell Dene. Whole area is part of the Seaton Delaval Hall Conservation Area. EA Flood Zones 2&3 (nil) Surface water Shallow 1:200, Shallow 1:30 and Deep 1:200 (small areas on the periphery of the LPA) Sewer flood risk (whole LPA) EA Flood Zones 2&3 (narrow strand along Seaton Burn on E edge of LPA) Surface water Shallow 1:200, Shallow 1:30 and Deep 1:200 (narrow strands associated with watercourses with small areas throughout LPA) Sewer flood risk (whole LPA) No designations and little risk of flooding. However, the reclaimed nature of the area is likely to create a constraint. High constraints level The Conservation Area, while being a secondary constraint, nevertheless denotes the setting of a Grade I listed Hall. Other designations (within and close by) and flood risk factors contribute. 22

24 SEATON VALLEY LPA Label/Name Copy of Green Belt purposes matrix conclusions column) LPA SV12 Despite the modest contribution to preventing merger, this area makes a strong contribution to open countryside and important settings, as well as preventing sprawl. LPA SV13 Despite the modest contribution to preventing merger, this area makes a strong contribution to open countryside and coast, very important settings, as well as preventing sprawl. LPA SV14 Despite the modest contribution to preventing merger and sprawl, this area makes a strong contribution to the open coast. Therefore high overall. LPA SV15 Despite the modest contribution to preventing merger, this area makes a Primary constraints national designations Listed Buildings (3 x Grade I i.e. Seaton Delaval hall, its Mausoleum and the Church of Our Lady, along with numerous other associated buildings and structures) Registered Park and Garden surrounding the Hall Ancient woodland along Holywell Dene NB close to SPA on coast. Listed Buildings (Grade II* Fort House and Grade II Delaval Arms) Immediately adjoins the SPA and SSSI on coast. Coastal SSSI overlaps Close to SPA at S end Registered Park and Garden along Avenue (extreme south) Listed Building (Lookout Farm Grade II, in prominent location at S end of LPA) Secondary constraints local designations LWGS along Holywell Dene. Whole area is part of the Seaton Delaval Hall Conservation Area. South of SPA is part of the Seaton Delaval Hall Conservation Area. South of SPA is part of the Seaton Delaval Hall Conservation Area. Southern two-thirds of SPA is part of the Seaton Delaval Hall Conservation Area. 23 Hydrological Nil EA Flood Zones 2&3 Surface Water Shallow 1:200, Shallow 1:30 and Deep 1:200 (isolated areas throughout LPA and along steam E-W) Sewer flood risk (whole LPA) Nil EA Flood Zones 2&3 (although adjoins areas subject to tidal flooding) Surface Water Shallow 1:200, Shallow 1:30 and Deep 1:200 (isolated areas) Sewer flood risk (most of LPA) EA Flood Zones 2&3 (significant areas towards N end and adjoining tidal flooding risk) Surface Water Shallow 1:200, Shallow 1:30 and Deep 1:200 (isolated areas) No sewer flooding risk. EA Flood Zones 2&3 (significant areas towards N end around Meggie s Burn) Surface Water Shallow 1:200, Shallow 1:30 and Detailed constraints conclusions High constraints level The Grade I Listed Buildings, the associated structures, Registered park and Garden, the Conservation Area and the other important designations (within and close by) denote a very high level of constraint. High constraints level The location adjacent to the international SPA is a strong constraint to development. The Grade II* Listed Building and the Conservation Area status are also important. High constraints level The natural designations and the flooding issues are severe constraints on development. High constraints level The combination of the Conservation association with Seaton Delaval Hall s

25 SEATON VALLEY LPA Label/Name Copy of Green Belt purposes matrix conclusions column) strong contribution to open coastal countryside and preventing sprawl, especially from Seaton Sluice. Primary constraints national designations Secondary constraints local designations Hydrological Deep 1:200 (isolated areas including along some watercourses) Sewer flood risk (all of the S and central parts of LPA) Detailed constraints conclusions setting and the high flood risk around Meggie s Burn lead to the conclusion that constraints are high. 24

26 Map 1: Seaton Valley Land Parcel Areas constraints and contribution to Green Belt purposes 25

27 Cramlington including East Cramlington, Hartford Bridge and south part of Stannington 5.4 Steps 1-2 of the Green Belt Review methodology carried out in the Northumberland Local Plan Core Strategy, Strategic Land Review, October 2013 indicates that the Green Belt bounds Cramlington to the east and west beyond the A189 and A1068 respectively, which in themselves form potential boundary limits to future expansion. To the south the area of Green Belt is also SSSI and golf course. The most unconstrained area is to the south west. Initial calculations as part of the Water Cycle Study suggest that Cramlington Wastewater Treatment Works has significant headroom to support new development. However some areas in the north and south of Cramlington are currently at risk of sewer flooding. Cramlington is located within National Character Area 13, South East Northumberland Coastal Plain. 5.5 The satellite settlement of Hartford Bridge and the southern areas of Stannington are assessed in the Cramlington matrices below. The north areas of Stannington are assessed in the Morpeth matrices. Table 4: Matrix to assess Cramlington Land Parcel Areas (LPAs) against purposes of Green Belt CRAMLINGTON (1) Check unrestricted LPA Ref CN01 CN02 LPA name Hartford Bridge South Hartford Bridge East sprawl of large built-up areas Some containment provided by the strong boundary of the River Blyth to north is balanced by a weaker boundary to the east increasing the risk of sprawl, which might occur through leapfrog development from the Tyne-Wear conurbation Some containment provided by strong boundary of River Blyth (2) Prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another Strong containment by River Blyth to north and A192 on south edge is outweighed by a weaker boundary to the north, which increases risk of merger between Cramlington and the settlement of Hartford Bridge Strong containment by River Blyth to south is outweighed by a (3) Assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment Some existing urban influences in LPA slightly increase the long-term risk of urbanisation of adjacent countryside and would impact on the setting of the rural settlement of Hartford Bridge Some existing urban influences in LPA slightly increase the (4) Preserve the setting and special character of historic towns The LPA does not contribute to this purpose The LPA does not contribute to this purpose Conclusion Balance of contributions to purposes (1) to (4) LPA Ref LPA CN01 High contribution to Green Belt purposes lack of impact on historic town setting is outweighed by higher risk of sprawl, merger and encroachment on the countryside. LPA CN02 High contribution to Green Belt purposes 26