For all those wanting to object to the development here are my legal and policy breaches. Feel free to reword them and send them to planning_admin@redcar-cleveland.gov.uk
This objection constitutes an objection to both R/2020/0368/CD and R/2020/0025/RM.
Ref: R/2020/0368/CD
I object to the planning proposal based on the following policies:
· Policy SD4 g. and NPPF Economic sustainability value and NPPF 86a violation
The congestion of the A1085 by the one-way system under Marske bridge will reduce footfall to existing business by deterring through transit.
· Policy SD4 r. violation and Equality Act 2010 violation
Disabled people are not catered for by the expansion of the pavement under the bridge. A discriminatory action against the NPPF and Equality Act 2010.
· Policy SD4 c. violation
The existing residents of Marske High Street will experience increased air and noise pollution from standing traffic North of Marske bridge.
The financial contribution of £12,000 for the upgrade of a circa 140m section from the A1095 along the northern boundary of the site is insufficient as will lead to taxpayer subsidy it will also cause extra pressure on the Marske bridge proposed pinch point.
TAA page 19, Table 5.1 the estimated number of entries and exists are half the expected total. At 6.6. the developers are planning for 2/3 cars per household – so why is the estimation based on one car per household? The congestion will be double due to each house having two commuting adults and the site having no senior school at peak times. As Bydales Outwood is at capacity the journeys would be to Redcar and Saltburn secondary schools – both of which are not readily accessible by public transport.
TAA Page 41 the A1085 has not been included in the accident study area and is being altered to 30 mph with one way under the listed bridge. More data is required to make an informed decision on the viability of the A1085 proposal.
Increased congestion into Marske high street not resolved (violation SD4b) This is also a NPPF 2021 sustainable development economic objective violation due to the congestion around Marske bridge reducing entry to Marske high street, giving reduced footfall of day visitors to Marske center businesses. The convenience store will affect Marske center business viability as its catchment area is partly that of existing stores such as the Coop, violation of NPPF 122 and policy TA1
· Policy TA2 violation
Financial contribution of £2,000 for improvements to the existing cycle facilities at Longbeck Railway Station. This amount is too low.
· NPPF 133 – failure to engage the community.
The congestion of the A1085 by the one-way system under Marske bridge is of relevance to all residents in the TS11 postcode. The top half of Marske High Street must be consulted as a bare minimum.
There has been no effort by the developer to engage with Marske people on the issue of the Marske bridge footpath.
There has been a general poor engagement by the developer with the community – a refusal to answer emails or meet with ward councillors (evidence can be provided).
Ref: R/2020/0025/RM
I object to the planning proposal based on the following policies based on the NPPF 2021, 134 principle: “the adverse impacts of the design outweigh the benefit.”
· Policy N3 violation
The site does not have enough open-public space, no children’s play area, nor sports pitch – Marske has no pubic sports pitches at all. The plan has no church yard – Marske needs a new cemetery. There is no green corridor – Marske has no green corridors. The developers claimed at 122 in Department of communities R/2013/0669/OOM on appeal (hereafter known as: “the appeal”) that new green spaces for the people of Marske would be created. Where are they?
A community center is to be built – but what is its purpose and who will maintain it? Marske’s Thrushwood community center closed in 2011 as it fell into disrepair.
· Local Plan 1.104/LS 2.i violation/Policy N3
Lack of sport facilities in Marske not addressed by development.
· NPPF 2021 sustainable development social objective violation
Namely well-designed beautiful places, open spaces and health and cultural wellbeing are not provided there is no sports field, and no children play area for example.
· Policy SD4 c. violation
The design has significant adverse impact on open spaces. The designs of the houses are elevated, uncamouflaged by trees, ugly in appearance according to similar estates described by purchasers (see below resources under SD4. K), and they violate the NPPF 2021 sustainable development environmental objective - protect and enhance natural, built, and historic environment. The site includes a SAM and is located next to Marske-by-the-Sea, a now very popular tourist resort. At the time of the original application Marske was not a tourist resort. Since a 2019 published national newspaper article it is now a popular tourist resort, and the development should have regard for this new economy.
· Policy SD4 g. violation
The development has a negative effect on local services. No senior school places are provided, and general practitioner services are closing locally (note the closure of a GP center in Marske, 2015). How will the fanciful GP center be filled and sustained? Does the developer have a deal with a university or GP contractor?
In January over 250 pharmacies closed in the UK due to lack of economic viability. How will a pharmacy within one mile of two other sites be viable? The pharmacy regulator, the GPhC, does not allow two pharmacies within one mile. So, a pharmacy cannot be opened on the site, regardless. The pharmacy needs removing – it is not possible to open a pharmacy anywhere in the outline planning application.
· Policy SD4 b. violation
No sport facilities are planned. A senior school is required, Marske Outwood Academy has zero free spaces. The developer’s lack of provision violates the NPPF sustainable development principle.
· Policy SD4 i. violation
Lack of appropriate landscaping considerations as specified by the 2017 appeal. Namely, an installation of a densely wooded greenbelt is required to limit the development and prevent coalescence of Marske, New Marske and Saltburn - to South, East and West of the site with reference to NPPF 73 e.
In the appeal it was stated that for each phase or sub-phase of the development, a full planting plan, including details of species and mix together with a landscape management plan covering a period of at least 10 years together with any proposals for advance structure planting, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Where is it?
The proposed site plan and landscape proposals 1, 2, and 3 differ regarding what is to be planted where. Which is correct?
A landscaping scheme is required to hide substantial harm. How early will trees be planted?
A condition of the outline appeal was that trees must be planted to the south of the site – on proposals 1, 2, 3 the applicant is cutting costs and planting grass. There is insufficient detail for the A1 landscape about protection and improvement of the area around the SAM as promised by the developer on appeal.
The lack of planting of heavy trees is not in keeping with points 27 and 28 of the appeal decision. The tree scheme is not in keeping with “garden city” principles of the NPPF at 73c.
Trees to the north are too thin affecting privacy of exiting residents. The applicant stated that tree barriers would be erected at all sides – this is not the case to the east, west and south. The tree lining to the South of the site is not to the specifications of the conditions of the 2017 appeal.
The mound to the north is insufficient to protect the privacy of Delamere and Sherwood drive. A barrier exceeding 30m plus dense tree belt is required. As per Document 1506-TAY-DAS Page 25 – a significant mound buffer has not been planned to reduce noise pollution to the existing conurbation.
· Policy SD4 j. violation
The massing of houses, elevation and materials are not in character.
The development is too dense and resulting in a key NPPF violation. In comparison with the Sherwood and Churchill estates – used by the applicant as a comparator in their 2017 appeal – housing density is higher in the proposal as the area of space occupied by dwellings is reduced due to accommodate the SAM. A figure of 810 houses on the site plus hotel, gas station, school, surgery, pharmacy, and convenience store has crammed the project into infeasibility. The site is too packed and doesn’t adhere to the NPPF. For example, the combined area of Marske-by-the-Sea’s Sherwood Drive and Churchill Drive estates contains 867 properties. These estates have over 300% more semi-detached dwellings and no community facilities or hotels or petrol stations, only a school with a moderate playing field. With the reduction of building space due to the SAM to the Northeast of the site 810 houses will not fit the space allocated. The legend on the site map is incorrect. It misses out Hubham and Bynreham show home increased sqft. calculations.
· Policy SD4 k. violation
The plan reduces quality of local area through poor architectural design and standards of the proposed housing.
The Millar homes Pearwood, Maplewood, Sherwood, Cedarwood, Bayford, Thetford, Overton, Buxton, Masterton, Tiverton, Eaton, Hazelwood, The Langston and the Claymont designs are all described as “ugly” in design press. Furthermore, all designs are incomplete: they have no dimensions and garages are missing to determine scale and what has a garage and what goes with what. The applicant needs to resubmit.
The 2017 appeal stated a renewable scheme of 10%, but since then legislation has moved on and R&C aims to be carbon neutral by 2030. There is no evidence of energy efficient features such as solar panels or air source heat pumps on any of the house designs.
The Miller designs are bog standard Miller produce with a terrible reputation. A Facebook group called “Miller Homes Unhappy Customers” has 1821 members. Refer to this site for further details on Miller’s poor standards and designs.
Taylor Wimpey’s own corporate Facebook page is a testimony to bad ‘off the shelf’ designs with comments such as “looks good until your house is riddled with damp and Taylor Wimpey won’t pay out damages” Jade Mercedes, January 31st; “Walls aren’t straight”, John Herd, January 25th; “my poor parents replaced the shower cubicle after it collapsed… the floor had rotted away” Michelle Barlow January 25th. “Absolutely disgusted with TW. Moved into house 6 months ago ( 2nd owner) leak in kitchen, leak in bathroom, new motor required for boiler and tradesmen advised all cheap parts had been used.” Alison Walker, January 18th.
There is no mention of the electric substation to the South East corner. What will happen to this vital infrastructure building?
· Policy SD4 i. violation
Energy efficiency and climate change adaptions are virtually non-existent in the developers plans - going against the carbon neutral commitment of R&C. The site even plans a petrol station when gasoline is to be phased out for electric cars. A petrol station is completely opposed to the council’s climate change policy and commitment.
The local plan provides for a 15-year vision (NPPF 22), and ten year period for development for South of Marske. The proposal includes Baxi gas boilers – and the developers are avoiding solar installations and air/ground source heat pumps.
The Appendix M methodology estimates that arrays totaling 270kWp will suffice – this is less than one PV solar panel per house. Another corner cutting cheap profit making solution for a developer who isn’t delivering quality.
Thus, the sustainable pattern of development is violated as the estate does not mitigate climate change (NPPF, 2021, Local plan 1.103).
The developer states “An efficient gas condensing boiler with confirmed NOx emissions of 40mg/kWh will be installed in each property”, later cited as “Baxi gas boilers”. The plan extends well beyond new development legislation banning gas installations in new builds after 2025. The site itself may not even start to be developed before that date. The energy statement is also incorrect by stating that air pumps create more carbon than a gas boiler.
The wind power measurement is flawed – there is no way that the wind is only 5.2M/sec on the field in question. In addition, the measure is just off the ground not on a roof where a wind turbine would appear.
Hot water solar technology is also ruled out for the most spurious of reasons in favor of a cheap polluting Baxi combi boiler.
The proposer needs to resubmit entirely as the layout plan is incorrect. Heat exchange systems require 9 m2 square free space. The layout plan is too compact to accommodate the air source heat pumps. The estate needs redrafting to comply with national legislation and R&C’s climate change ambitions.
The total energy requirement of the site is 2,315,081.53kwh/year. A net value in excess of 2,000,000,000kwh/year is planned to come from carbon sources. This is not acceptable in 2023.
The proposed site plan does not have enough trees to meet R&Cs carbon neutral ambitions.
There is no planning for electric car chargers – but a petrol station.
The adverse impact on climate change policies alone means adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
· NPPF 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157 violations
The erroneous use of gas boilers is due to an intentionally flawed carbon reduction study, which aims to put in cheap infrastructure at the cost of purchasers and the environment. It rules out air source heat pumps stating they created more carbon than a cheap gas Baxi combi boiler. Ground source heating systems are also ruled out in favor of gas boilers due to carbon emissions – this is done not on carbon grounds but on cost cutting grounds lowering the standard and sustainability of the offer.
· Policy SD4 m. violation
Lack of healthy spaces – no playground provision for children (NPPF 98)
· Policy SD4 p. violation
In adequate vehicle access during development and then on completion. An estimated 1620 cars with only two turn junctions for access, a violation of NPPF 9.d. During 66% of the development - a period of over seven years – only one of the access sites will be open.
· Policy SD4 q. violation
No extra health improvement areas included. There are no cycle lanes (NPPF 92). The site includes a fast food restaurant within 400 meters of a school.
· Policy ED 3 violation
Over 5% of units in the commercial center are dedicated to fast food. The fast-food restaurant needs removing.
· Local Plan 5.19 violation:
The fast-food restaurant will be in view of a school (the site is elevated to the southeast corner).
· Policy SD4 r. violation and Equality Act 2010 violation
No details of access for those with disabilities – not bungalows are planned.
· Policy SD5 e. violation
Lack of open spaces for recreation
· Policy SD4 f. violation - Increases flood risk and Policy SD5 f. violation - inconsistency in drainage methods:
The overall engineering plan is insufficient. The area most prone to flooding has a S350B/ S250 Tank which is subject to supplier design – the council needs to have the developer specify the exact nature of the tank as it is critical to preventing flooding to existing property.
The surface water mound critically has a break at mid-point to the northern side that will flood the railway infrastructure.
The surface water drainage plan is for 803 houses not 810. The school playing field is an integral part of the drainage plan, the developer’s uncertainty around inclusion of the field invalidates the drainage plan.
The drainage plan has a basin to the west, while the A1 landscape has a tank. Which is it?
The drainage strategy risk document differs in its estimation of flooding risk to the drainage plan. Which is correct? The lack of planning violates NPPF 159, 160, 161, 162.
Is point E a tank as it is in the landscape plan or a tank as in the drainage plan. Is point F a basin as in the landscape plan or a tank as in the drainage plan. Point C is in the drainage plan but not the landscape plan or engineering reports. What is the plan? Which one is correct? Do the developers even know?
Necessary approvals for connections to Northumbrian Water’s sewer system are absent, rather only an outline of possibilities is provided.
The surface water drainage plan during and after construction is reliant upon manhole 7903 according to the applicant’s plan of 09.12.2019. Nutrient assessment shows the entire area as impeded drainage. Construction transport assessment shows 6 stages and manhole 7903 as being key to keeping Longbeck Lane clear during development. This is described as a last resort by Northumbrian Water in AD1850_FRA but the developers use the 70l/s into 7903 as their model template (page 30).
Simulations rather than actual discharges are used. The applicant has had since 2012 to replace simulated rainfall numbers with real side data, it has not done so and real date must be demanded by the local authority to avoid negligence claims from future flooded residents.
NPPF 162 points to the fact that the developer, with such intensive drainage plans and inability to direct away from Manhole 7903, should be exploring other sites in the borough. The location, irrespective of outline permission, is not feasible on the current site at the volumes of buildings proposed.
The drainage plan as proposed violates NPPF 164b and must be rejected to avoid the council paying out compensation claims to residents on Sherwood Drive and Delemere Drive for future frequent flooding incidences.
Environmental impact of the sewer scheme has not been assessed. No new sewer system is planned to accommodate a large increase in sizable mass.
· 2017 Appeal stipulations violation
The conservation management plan for the SAM is missing; the archeological survey requires repeating – refer to page 16 of the “Phase” report. As per the appeal, 150m should separate the SAM from the development, it is not clear that it does - a scaled map needs producing by the applicant.
Removal of the school playing field diameters likely constitutes encroachment of the 150m radius to the SAM enforced at the appeal. An exact scale and measurement is now required.
· NPPF 6 – sustainable economy violation
At 72 in the appeal, the developer predicted 500 new jobs per year. However, employment has decreased by 7% over each of the past three years. The affordable percentage of housing is thus too low as it’s based on the 2013-16 period of a 500 increase year on year (appeal point 84). In addition the need for 810 houses at all is debunked by the downturn and NPPF at 73. Also note that the market price for Marske is elevated. Affordable homes will not be affordable as Marske is a desired place to live fetching a higher price. The developer is fully aware of this fact and is playing the local authority. The developer is highly likely to use the s.106 levy to avoid any avoidable houses being built.
Management company details and fees must be made available to the council – will they be affordable, and who will manage the site and what will they manage? What are the council’s responsibilities, and the taxpayer’s outlay for such management?
· NPPF 112 P105 violation
No new bus stops are outlined in the developers site plan. Taylor Wimpey highlight there will be four on site – which is correct? Will services be provided to the site if Taylor Wimpey’s version is correct? Where is a complete transport plan?
More details required on introduction of pedestrian refuge islands on Longbeck Lane and A1085 (with the location of these previously agreed, see document TAA)
More details on provision of a new bus layby at the existing stop on the eastern side of Longbeck Road required. Is this to remain a bus shelter? Which services will stop there? Will the stop cause standing traffic?
More detail required on introduction of two bus stops on the A1085, in the vicinity of the site access junction, and assessment of disruption into Marske. Is this a bus shelter? Which services will stop there? Will the stops cause standing traffic?
A detailed travel plan is missing. The statement of “Introduction of 4no. bus stops (2 pairs) on the spine road, within the site itself” is at odds with the transport report that states no new bus stops. Which is it?!
Again, TAA page 14: The spine road bus stops are absent from the main plan.
There are lots of parking places but no cycle lanes failing to support sustainable transport.
The paltry donation to one of the railway stations in not a sufficient contribution to upgrade the train stations to support sustainable transport (NPPF 73).
· NPPF 114 violation
There is no mention of 5G or electronic communication in the plans.
· Environment bill 2020 violation
No proof is provided of a net gain in biodiversity as per NPPF 120 – no new creation of habitat and no carbon storage. The developer claimed they would increase biodiversity on appeal. Where is the biodiversity plan?
· Policy TA3 Violation
TAA Page 11 – no new cycle lanes nor access to the national cycle route is displayed.
Provision of a footway under the A1085 railway bridge as part of the introduction of signalised shuttle working under the bridge. Requires more details.
· NPPF 130a violation
The outer leaf of all houses is brick – the houses are not architecturally attractive as stated (NPPF 130a);
· NPPF 130b violation
Designs are not sympathetic to local architecture (130b)
· NPPF 130c violation
Landscaping is insufficient.
· NPPF 130d violation
The lack of seamless access to the existing conurbation means there is lack of sense of place (130d).
· NPPF 130e violation
There is a lack of adequate mix of green and open spaces.
· NPPF 131 violation
Streets are not tree lined.
· NPPF 5 violation
R&C is delivering a sufficient supply of homes. R&C does not require 810 homes to be crammed on half a site. It is now well ahead of its housing targets of 270 (234 net) houses 2015 to 2021: 271, 518, 393, 439, 346, 352, 422. The developer needs to stop being so greedy and produce sensible housing distributions on a more sustainable site.
The phases are written in the local plan as lasting over 12 years. This is not acceptable to existing residents