ABOUT IMPACT

BRIEFINGS

USEFUL LINKS

PROJECTS (to follow)

Joint winners of the Guardian's 'Eco-Gong' 2003

 

COATHAM ENCLOSURE PLANS

Plans to redevelop the 'Coatham Enclosure' site at Redcar have provoked major protests, especially at the loss of open space.

To understand it, a good starting point is the description on the council's own web site. The most prominent objector, Chris McGlade, puts his views online at www.redcarprotest.20m.com/ and on his blog site. There's been some lively discussion, too, on local message board www.redcar.net and in the Gazette

On behalf of IMPACT, Paul Munster has challenged four elements of the scheme that we believe are deeply flawed:

• Flooding and run-off risks
• The neglected need for 'green' design
• The value of Open Space
• The impact on the town centre

The comments (below) provide Impact's verbal and written evidence to a 'Commission' set up by the council's scrutiny committee in November 2004.
 

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to make this presentation to you. My interest in this development is as a resident of Redcar for 15 years. I currently work for Friends of the Earth and I am a member of the Environmental residents group known as IMPACT. Today I want to bring to the attention of this commission 4 points which I believe need to be addressed before a decision can be made on the progress of this development. FLOODING The presentation at the previous public scrutiny commission included an image from the Environment Agencies website showing potential flooding during severe weather conditions. What I want to bring to your attention is the scientific report produced for the Government by the UK climate impacts programme in 2002. Known as the UKCIP02 scientific report Note 1 it describes scenarios based on global climate models from the Hadley centre - One of the most comprehensively validated climate model in the world (Government's words not mine). One scenario suggests a potential sea level change of 66 cms (26") by the year 2080. These scenarios, together with storm surges suggested by the EA can increase the probability of a present-day extreme sea level occurring in any given year from 2% currently to approx. 33% by 2080. Given this data and your own policy on building developments on undeveloped flood plains as quoted in the Tees Valley Structure Plan Note 2, can the council justify this development? In addition to coastal flooding there is the issue of water runoff during periods of severe weather. I wasn't born during the East coast flood of 1953 but I've seen pictures of the devastation done along this coast line. By building this development the council will be ensuring that any water driven inland by a mixture of high spring tides, onshore winds and rainstorms will not soak away into the green covered land that was the golf course but will run southward off the tarmacced surfaces of the Coatham enclosure toward Coatham road and the Trunk road leading to increased flood risk in the homes along Kirkleatham lane, Corporation road, Gordon Road and Severn Road. We have already seen increased levels of flooding at the top of Kirkleatham lane in recent years as well as on the field behind Saltscar field off Mersey road. My Second Point is that of ENERGY AND GREEN DESIGN For this point I intend to quote Peter Goodwin who some of you will know as a member of the Green Party and a previous resident having recently moved to the South West. "As a principal partner in the Coatham Common development, the Council is in a unique position to put its policies for sustainable development into practice.  To fail to do so would  be a dereliction of duty - especially in a borough where sea level rise is an issue! The recent spate of announcements revealing that climate change is accelerating even more quickly than expected, should lead us to seize every opportunity to reduce our own contributions to climate change.  A new development such as this offers the ideal opportunity to design in those integral features which are far more difficult to fit later on.  However, the construction industry is notoriously conservative in these matters, and is unlikely to pay any more attention to them than the Building Regulations demand. One tool now available to the council is the Government's Planning Policy Statement 22 Note 3, dealing with Renewable Energy.  It allows planning authorities to require that a proportion of a development's total energy requirements should be locally, and renewably, sourced. In the longer term the council will probably be looking to its Local Plan, or Local Development Framework, to put PPS22 into practice and to lay down high standards of energy efficiency etc. in all new developments.  However, that is years away; at Coatham and in other new development in which the council is a key partner, it can and should act now, before more damage is done. The very first policy in Redcar & Cleveland's Local Plan, GEN1, stresses that "the impact of the development on the local and global environment" must be taken into account; it becomes a material planning consideration. Therefore, the council should put its own policies into practice here. Fortunately, plenty of work on how to minimise adverse impacts has already been done by others.  The Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methods (BREEAM) Note 4 provides a wealth of advice and a recognised inspection and certification system, covering a whole range of measures that reduce the bad environmental impacts of new development.  If the Coatham developer is required to reach a high BREEAM standard, of 'VERY GOOD' or 'EXCELLENT', this development really will be a flagship for the council, setting a precedent for the future and perhaps even beginning to rid the area of its polluting image. There have already been a number of commercially successful developments built around these principles. Perhaps the best known is the Bed Zed Note 5 housing development in the London Borough of Sutton, where the Peabody Trust built innovative houses and flats on the site of an old sewage works. Among the claims for this particular venture are that it is 'carbon neutral', i.e. it makes a zero net contribution to climate change emissions. Other progressive councils are already demonstrating that it is possible to require very high standards in new development (and often in adaptations to existing buildings too): In the London Borough of Merton's Unitary Development Plan there is a requirement Note 6 that new non-residential developments should source at least 10% of their energy requirements from on-site renewable generation.  At the Inquiry into the proposed UDP, this clause was upheld by the Inspector in spite of objections from developers.  If that can be achieved in London, what might be achieved at a windy site on the north-east coast? Calderdale MBC in West Yorkshire is currently consulting on changes to its UDP Note 7 to insist on renewable energy provision.  This goes a bit further than Merton, in that it will apply to new and conversion applications, and sets targets that increase with time. North Devon District Council is, like Calderdale, updating its Local Plan.  Here, the Authority will require developers to reach benchmark BREEAM standards, and has also listed a series of 'sustainability principles' that must be honoured in planning applications. Note 8 The third point I like to raise if that of: SAFEGUARDING OPEN SPACES In the Tees Valley Structure Plan it refers to PPG17 Sport and Recreation (page 93) and in particular paragraph 9.7 refers to balancing the need to designate land for development with the need to protect open land from development. Further more paragraph 9.10 says that planning authorities need to provide the strongest protection for open space that is, or that has the potential to be, of value to the community. There's no doubt that there is a strong feeling within this community for protecting the open spaces in and around Coatham. I believe these open spaces, with a bit of innovative thinking could provide better recreational use for the residents of Redcar and be of a greater benefit then replacing it with approx 285 new houses. Finally, I come to point 4 EFFECT ON THE TOWN CENTRE Recently we have witnessed the decline in the number of open shops in the high street since the addition of Morrison's supermarket. In particular the east end of the high street closest to the bus station has suffered the worst effect. My fear is that the additional leisure facilities proposed of a Bingo hall/Casino, Visitors attraction, family entertainment, public house, night club and some retail outlets have the potential to increase the decline by taking trade away from the current leisure facilities along the promenade leading to a further drastic reduction in the vitality and viability of our town centre. This is in contradiction to the statement in the Tees Valley Structure Plan (page 85, TC1) which talks about maintaining and strengthening these areas. In Conclusion I would like this commission to address these points I have raised today with the council cabinet. I look forward to receiving a copy of your responses in due course. Thank you 1. UKCIP website at www.ukcip.org.uk/scenarios/ back 2. At Policy ENV26 on page 47 of the Structure Plan - see www.teesvalley-jsu.gov.uk/tvsp/STRUCTURE%20PLAN.pdf back 3. At Para 8 of PPS22 - see www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_planning/ documents/page/odpm_plan_030334.hcsp back 4. BREEAM - see :  http://products.bre.co.uk/breeam/index.html back 5. Bed Zed - numerous web references, For a good introduction we recommend www.bedzed.org.uk/main.html, and www.leef.org.uk/articles/article.php?id=3 back 6. Merton UDP Policy PE13 - see www.merton.gov.uk/udp/acrobat/protectionenv.pdf back 7. Calderdale: See paras PIC69 to PIC72 at www.calderdale.gov.uk/build-plan/planning/plan/udp/ pre-inquiry/_text/environmentalprotection.html back 8. North Devon:  See Chapter 4 at www.northdevon.gov.uk/services/local_plan/revisedplan/chap4.pdf back

first uploaded: 24.11.04
latest update: 24.11.04