Back to Contents   |   Back to Introduction

CHAPTER 3 - THE PREFERRED OPTION

 

INTRODUCTION

3.1       An important element in preparing the Local Development Framework (LDF) is the identification and testing of a number of different policy options. These options are tested against the sustainability objectives of the Sustainability Appraisal (SA). In this way it is possible to develop the spatial vision and strategy required to deliver Middlesbrough’s growth in a sustainable way. From this, a preferred option is identified which will provide the framework for developing the policy options, not only within this Core Strategy, but also the other Development Plan Documents (DPDs) that will comprise the LDF.

3.2       The selection of options to appraise has been decided having regard to a number of factors. These include matters such as national and regional planning policy as expressed in Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) and the emerging Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS). There are also a number of regional and sub-regional initiatives that have a direct bearing upon the choice and form of the Spatial Strategy. These initiatives include the city region, Stockton-Middlesbrough Initiative (SMI) and Housing Market Renewal (HMR).

3.3       These options were considered at a SA workshop in July 2005.

 

DEVELOPMENT OF THE PREFERRED OPTION

The options

3.4       Four strategic options were considered for the development of the spatial strategy.

  1. Development led by the market.
  2. Development focused upon renewal of existing communities.
  3. Development focused on the provision of one large mixed use community providing a mix of housing types.
  4. Development focused on the provision of dispersed mixed use communities.

3.5       A number of the strategic options could entail significant residential development on one or more sites. It was therefore decided to assess a number of strategic locations for meeting the housing requirement identified in the emerging RSS. This assessment examined the creation of sustainable communities focused on:

3.6       A further workshop session explored the SMI and how it could be delivered in a sustainable way to achieve the desired objectives of the SMI, RSS, and city region concept.

Assessment of the options

Option 1: Development led by the market

3.7       The location and type of development to be delivered under this option would be determined by the market. Such an approach is unlikely to deliver the level of investment necessary to meet the development and infrastructure requirements of those areas in greatest need. It is likely to place greater pressure for development in those areas where there is already significant levels of development and development pressure. Following such a strategy would exacerbate the problems of housing market renewal, would be unlikely to satisfactorily address the issues facing Middlesbrough and lead to unsustainable patterns of development. Such an approach would also be contrary to national and regional policy.

3.8       The Council consider that this option should not be pursued further.

Option 2: Development focused on renewal of existing communities

3.9       This option would see development focused on the regeneration of areas of significant deprivation and bringing forward of previously developed land. Such an approach has the benefit of ensuring that virtually all development would occur on previously developed land. The regeneration of deprived areas provides an opportunity to address the causes of deprivation and to create sustainable communities where people wish to live and work. This can be achieved through diversifying housing type and tenure and improving quality and energy efficiency. There will also be opportunities to improve the local environment in terms of providing quality green spaces, and reducing opportunities for crime and the fear of crime. Regeneration of these areas will also enable new, much needed infrastructure requirements to be incorporated into the local community.

3.10            Concentrating all Middlesbrough’s growth in these areas has its disadvantages. These areas would not be capable of accommodating all of Middlesbrough’s growth requirements. It is also unlikely that development in these areas would address issues such as stemming population loss. Traditionally these are areas of quite dense development. Whilst it is unlikely that all housing stock will be replaced, a significant proportion will need to be and will be done so at lower densities. These densities will still meet PPS3 requirements. To accommodate the required number of dwellings other sites outside of these communities will need to be identified, and some may potentially be greenfield sites. It is also questionable that such an option would provide the necessary choice of dwelling types and locations to meet the needs of Middlesbrough’s current and future population.

3.11            Development of these areas will potentially involve the displacement of some
households, and some level of housing clearance. It is necessary to have sufficient housing stock in place to accommodate the displaced occupants. Clearance and replacement takes time to achieve, and it is improbable that this can be undertaken at a rate that meets the requirements of the emerging RSS. There are also short-term issues caused by population loss out of these areas during regeneration which may impact upon the viability of already precarious facilities such as local schools. Any regeneration activities will need to be carefully managed and phased.

3.12     Whilst this option presents significant sustainability gains, and will help focus development to those areas it is most needed, it raises a number of issues that would need to be addressed.

Option 3: Development focused on the provision of one large mixed use community providing a mix of housing types

3.13     This option explores the development needs of Middlesbrough through the creation of one large sustainable community, incorporating employment, leisure, retail and housing development, and utilising greenfield land as required.

3.14     This option has a number of advantages. The creation of a single large mixed use community would enable a development incorporating sustainability principles in its design and construction from the outset. A critical mass could be achieved for the development that would allow innovative energy efficiency and other sustainability concepts such as the use of CHP to be integrated into the development. A certain size of development is also necessary to attract investment in different types of infrastructure. It would also be possible to create a sustainable community of mixed tenures and dwelling types.

3.15     A single large mixed use community which met all of Middlesbrough’s development requirements would not be possible. For a scheme of this scale it would need to be identified through the RSS. The only site identified in the RSS is Greater Middlehaven. Whilst this is capable of meeting a significant level of the growth needed it cannot accommodate it all. The scale of development proposed for Middlesbrough could only be achieved on a single site through the use of a significant level of greenfield land. This is unsustainable and would be contrary to meeting brownfield targets identified in the emerging RSS and national policy.

3.16     It is not desirable to create a single large mixed use community as it would not address the issues facing Middlesbrough. Whilst it may help to stem population growth, it does not tackle the problems of housing market renewal or deprivation in the inner urban areas. The decline of these areas is likely to be hastened.

3.17     Whilst there may be a role for the creation of one or more large mixed use communities this needs to be seen within the context of assisting with tackling problems of deprivation, housing market renewal and regeneration of the inner areas.

Option 4: Development focused on the provision of dispersed mixed use communities

3.18     This option would result in the development needed to meet Middlesbrough’s growth being dispersed on a range of brownfield and greenfield sites throughout the town. Priority would be given to brownfield sites that deliver regeneration benefits.

3.19     By prioritising brownfield sites, and those that assist with regeneration, this option provides a sustainable solution to accommodating Middlesbrough’s growth. Dispersal of development could, however, result in an unsustainable pattern of development that could result in longer and more car trips and poorer access to key facilities. It is unlikely that dispersal of development will be able to achieve the critical mass required to be viable for the provision of new infrastructure or facilities, and may not be sufficient to attract the necessary investment to assist with regeneration and renewal.

3.20            Dispersal may provide an opportunity to provide a range of sites increasing housing choice, but there is concern that the fragmented nature of dispersed sites may work against the objective of ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to live in a decent and affordable home.

3.21     This option has some positive sustainability benefits and will help to address some of the issues facing Middlesbrough. By itself it cannot deliver the required level of growth in Middlesbrough and if it is to be pursued will need to form part of a wider strategy.

Sustainable urban extension

3.22     A number of the options refer to the creation of a single large mixed use community on either previously developed land or a greenfield location. It was felt appropriate as part of this process to examine which of the possible locations would be the preferred one for a sustainable urban extension. The three general locations considered were:

3.23     Each of the three locations was assessed, as part of the sustainability appraisal workshop held in July 2005, against the sustainability objectives. The findings of this workshop are contained within the sustainability appraisal scoping report.

3.24     This process demonstrated that all three locations would have a negative impact upon the use of natural resources, in particular greenfield land. Development of the scale envisaged as part of an urban extension will require a significant amount of greenfield land. Even the development at Hemlington Grange, which will utilise some previously developed land, will still require development on some greenfield land. In this context Hemlington Grange is the most sustainable.

3.25     The fact that all three locations will involve development on greenfield land means that each will entail some visual impact upon the landscape. Land between Poole Hospital and Nunthorpe is located adjacent to the Special Landscape Area and as such development here is likely to have an unacceptable impact upon the rural landscape. The area between Stainton and Brookfield is part of a Green Wedge, so designated in order to prevent the coalescence of the urban areas and protect local identity. Development in this location would also be highly visible and would impact upon the setting of Stainton village. There is a ridge line to the south of the Hemlington Grange site that can act as a visual barrier when viewing the development from the south. It is also probably the least attractive of the three area both visually and in terms of its contribution to providing a landscape setting to Middlesbrough.

3.26     All three locations would need to undergo an ecological survey to determine any bio-diversity interest. Of the three locations, Hemlington Grange was considered at the workshop to have the least bio-diversity interest as it is largely covered by poor grassland with low wildlife potential.

3.27            Accessibility to local facilities is an important sustainability consideration. Only the development at Hemlington Grange is within convenient and easy walking and cycling distance to existing facilities at either the Viewley Centre or Coulby Newham District Centre, including shops, schools (primary and secondary), leisure, and employment amongst others.

3.28     The location between Stainton and Brookfield is well located in terms of accessing the strategic highway network, being adjacent to the junction of the B1380 with the A174, and close proximity to the A19. Hemlington Grange is also well located to access the strategic highway network, but is slightly further away. Whilst development between Poole Hospital and Nunthorpe could also access the strategic highway network via the A172 and A174 junction, it would result in a significant amount of traffic being placed upon the Marton Road, A172, which is already highly congested at peak times.

3.29     By the nature of its accessibility to local facilities, development at Hemlington Grange is also well located to take advantage of a good public transport system, and contribute to an improved level of service. Hemlington Grange is also the only location where it would be possible to link the development of the site directly to the regeneration of a deprived area. By ­ensuring that the development of Hemlington Grange is integrated with the regeneration of the Hemlington Estate it will be possible to ensure that people living in the area have access to local job opportunities, improved education and recreation facilities, and access to improved high quality and affordable housing.

3.30     The general consensus at the sustainability workshop was that, if a location for a strategic urban extension had to be found, development of Hemlington Grange would be preferable to the other two. Not only would development here have lesser negative impacts than the other sites, but it also has the added benefit of being able to deliver a comprehensive regeneration package when considered alongside the regeneration of the Hemlington Estate.


PREFERRED OPTION

3.31     The preferred option is based largely upon option 2 but includes elements of 3 and 4. The majority of development is focused upon previously developed land in the north of the town, Greater Middlehaven, Middlesbrough town centre, and the Riverside and East Middlesbrough Industrial Estates. This is complemented by the regeneration of Greater Hemlington, including the development of Hemlington Grange, to create a sustainable mixed use community on the southern edge of the town (options 3, 4). The strategy also focuses on the regeneration of a number of communities within the town, but well located to the town centre and not dispersed across the town – Gresham/Middlehaven, North Ormesby, Whinney Banks and Grove Hill (option 2).

3.32 This provides the framework for developing the policies within this Core Strategy.

Top of page