Back to Contents   |   Back to Introduction

CHAPTER 1 - BACKGROUND

 

INTRODUCTION

1.1       This DPD has been produced in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004).

1.2       The Regeneration Development Plan Document (DPD) identifies specific sites that are proposed for development and principal regeneration sites, including Greater Middlehaven. These allocations will cover housing, employment, mixed use, retail, leisure, and transport uses. It sets out the site-specific policies that will be used in the determination of planning applications. The Regeneration DPD covers the whole of the borough, and needs to be in conformity with the Local Development Framework (LDF) Core Strategy, which sets out the broad locations and general principles for development. The relationship between the Regeneration DPD, the Core Strategy and the other elements of the LDF is shown in

 

POLICY CONTEXT

1.3       The Regeneration DPD has not been produced in a policy vacuum. It has been necessary to have regard to a number of policy documents that set the framework within which the LDF needs to be prepared. The Regeneration DPD has been prepared to be in conformity with the Regional Spatial Strategy.

1.4       Other documents that have provided the policy framework for producing the Regeneration DPD include

Fig 1.1  MIDDLESBROUGH LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK

Figure 1.1

 

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

1.5       The comments received during the various community engagement exercises have been analysed and informed the preparation of the DPD. The main comments are summarised in the following paragraphs.

Greater Middlehaven

1.6       The range of uses identified in the Greater Middlehaven Strategic Framework Plan was considered appropriate by the majority of respondents, though a number expressed concern that floorspace for particular uses should not be rigidly fixed given market uncertainties. Some respondents expressed concern at the deliverability of the proposed scale of residential development.

Greater Hemlington

1.7Concern was raised by some respondents on the proposed residential element of Greater Hemlington, particularly with regard to the impact on development elsewhere in the borough. This will be addressed through an appropriate phasing policy. The majority of respondents recognised that regeneration benefits to Hemlington could be achieved through the linked development of the Hemlington Grange site. However, one respondent felt the regeneration benefits were overstated and would divert resources away from tackling deprivation in Hemlington.

Inner Middlesbrough Older Housing

1.8For areas of older housing where clearance is proposed, respondents supported the redevelopment in principle for a mix of house types, open space, community facilities and alternative land uses, being dependent on location. In terms of replacement densities the majority of respondents felt that lower density was appropriate in locations where high-density terrace dwellings were being cleared, but that PPG3 densities could be achieved. A number of respondents felt a range of densities should be developed. Concern was also voiced by other respondents regarding the impact on the sustainability of a location if densities were reduced. A significant number of objections were made to the proposals for the regeneration of the Gresham/Jewels Street area. The principal concerns were that:

Competitive Business Infrastructure

1.9       There was support for improvements to the quality of development in Riverside Park and the need to improve its riverside edge and its interface with Greater Middlehaven. There was also support for the Green Blue Heart to enhance transport and leisure provision and to create a meaningful heartland for the new urban core to the city region.

Revitalising the Housing Market

1.10     There was general support for the prioritisation of appropriate brownfield housing opportunities prior to the release of greenfield sites. However, the majority of respondents recognised that some greenfield sites would need to be released to deliver a mix of housing. Where significant greenfield sites are required, the majority of respondents supported the principle of linking its development with brownfield development and/or the regeneration of run-down areas through the use of planning obligations. There was general support to the plan providing guidance on which types of new housing is required, though a number of respondents suggested that this should be applied in such a manner as to allow flexibility for changing markets. At preferred options stage, a number of alternative/additional housing sites were put forward by developers and/or landowners for inclusion within the DPD.

A 21st Century Retail and Leisure Centre

1.11     There was support for limits on non-retail use in the town centre in order to maintain the retail offer. In terms of new food retail, the preferred locations were within the existing town centre and edge of centre. There was also support for expanding the town centre into Middlehaven, Cannon Park, and the University areas. Some concerns were expressed over the potential impact of expanding the centre on other centres. In terms of identified town centre development opportunities there were some concerns expressed over the potential loss of the lake as part of the redevelopment of Central Gardens East. Respondents considered that there is a sufficient number of district centres to serve the borough. With regard to the future of local centres, responses were split equally between protecting and enhancing all centres and allowing growth in some centres whilst managing decline of others.

A Regional Centre for Education, Health and Culture

1.12     Support was expressed for the identification of future sites for the University to expand into, in order that it can contribute effectively to the economic prosperity of the town. The preferred option for the future use of primary school sites closed as part of school rationalisation would be for open space and/or community use. There was a lower level of support for residential use.

Connecting Middlesbrough

1.13     There was widespread support for improved rail services, additional train stations (particularly at James Cook University hospital), a tramway/Light Rapid Transit and park and ride facilities to improve connectivity. Objections were also received to the proposals for the East Middlesbrough Corridor.

 

SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL (SA)

1.14     The SA accompanying this document is an update of that undertaken at Preferred Options Stage and appraises the significant changes that have been made to the DPD. An environmental statement accompanies this adopted DPD.

 

HABITATS REGULATIONS ASSESSMENT (HRA)

1.15     The Regeneration DPD has been subject to an assessment as required under the HRA regulations. The assessment concluded that there were unlikely to be any significant effects upon either the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Special Protection Area (SPA)/Ramsar site, or North York Moors SPA/Special Area of Conservation (SAC) sites. Sufficient safeguards are in place, in the form of overarching policies within the Core Strategy, and more detailed site specific policies within the Regeneration DPD. These policies will ensure that any significant impacts upon the above sites are avoided, mitigated against, or compensated.

 

FORMAT OF THIS DPD

1.16     The policies and proposals contained in this DPD reflect the topic areas identified within the Core Strategy and follow the structure set out in that document to assist with cross referencing and conformity considerations.

Top of page