#

Date 14 August 2013

Our ref: 13/01564/CM1
Your ref:

Dear Mr Lowther,

PLANNING PERMISSION REF: 13/00249/FUL FORMER JOBES CAF, MARINE
WALK, SUNDERLAND

Thank you for your correspondence, namely Freedom of Information requests,
complaints and enquiries, sent to various individuals and sections of the authority
received 5 June, 12 June, 13 June, 15 June, 18 June, 21 June, 24 June, 25 June, 28
June, 2 July, 5 July, 30 July, 5 August, 6 August and 7 August. In response to your
concerns and queries I wish to provide the following comments.

Firstly, may I apologise for the time taken to respond to your various pieces of
correspondence, however as I am sure you will appreciate given the number of
enquiries, complaints and Freedom of Information requests that you have submitted
over a number of weeks it has taken some time to collate all of the pieces of
correspondence and formulate responses to each point in order to ensure that all of
these are addressed in a comprehensive manner. Please note that I am very sorry to
learn of your dissatisfaction and trust that the following information addresses the
queries you raise.

Email to DC received 5 June 2013

1. Request for drawings from the application file

Unfortunately the initial delay that you incurred was due to a resource issue
within the Development Management Technical Support section and for this I
apologise.

I understand that since your original email dated 5 June Joanne Angus, Team
Leader Development Management Technical Support, has contacted you on a
number of occasions and a meeting was held on 11 July 2013 whereby she
provided you with access to all of the relevant files. Following this meeting and
subsequent dialogue I understand that she has furnished you with copies of all
of the material you requested.

Email to Philip Meldrum received 12 June 2013

2. 2. This planning application should have been addressed by the
Planning Committee

As explained in previous correspondence to you the decision as to whether or
not a planning application is reported to Committee for determination is set out
within the Council Constitution. The Constitution sets out how the Council
operates, how decisions are made and the procedures to be followed to ensure
that these are efficient, transparent and accountable to local people. I
understand that a copy of the delegation scheme, as set out in Part 3
Responsibility for Functions, has been sent to you, however for the avoidance
of doubt I wish to reiterate the following.

Part 3 Responsibility for Functions of the Constitution sets out the functions of
the Planning and Highways Committee and the three Development Control Sub
Committees (North Sunderland, Sunderland South & City Centre and Hetton,
Houghton and Washington). It specifies the types of applications that the Sub
Committees will be responsible for determining, namely:

the following applications under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
the Planning and Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990,and any
related secondary legislation:

1) Applications (other than those for approval of reserved matters)
comprising residential development of ten or more dwellings or the site
area is 0.5 acres or more; or other developments where the floor space is
500 sq. meters (gross) or more or the site areas is 1 hectare or more.

2) Applications relating to mineral workings except those concerning the
discharge of conditions.

3) Applications which are a departure from the Development Plan policy,
and which would be required to be the subject of a notification to the
Secretary of State if the Sub-Committee were minded to approve them;

4) Applications where there is an objection from a statutory consultee;

5) Applications made pursuant to Regulations 3 or 4 of the Town and
Country Planning (General Regulations) 1999;

6) Applications within the ward of any member, which the member
requests be determined by the appropriate Development Control Sub-
Committee or which the Chairman of the relevant Sub-Committee so
requests, subject to the request being made in writing to the Director of
Development and Regeneration, within 28 days of receipt of the
application.

7) Consultations from neighbouring authorities on all applications close to
a common boundary with the City of Sunderland.

Therefore having regard to the above I trust that you now understand why the
aforementioned planning application was not reported to the Development
Control North Sunderland Sub Committee for determination.


2. 3. The planning application is in conflict with planning policy

I understand that this issue of complaint has also been responded to by way of
FOI however, I would again like to reiterate the following points.

When considering any application for planning permission it is particularly
important to establish the acceptability of the principle of development. Section
38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) provides that:

'if regard is to be had to the Development Plan for the purpose of any
determination to be made under the planning acts, the determination must be
made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate
otherwise.'

The first test, and the statutory starting point is whether the application is 'in
accordance with the plan', which is a phrase that has been the subject of debate
in the High Court in the context of Section 54A of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990. In his judgment of 31 July 2000 (R v Rochdale Metropolitan
Borough Council ex parte Milne), Mr Justice Sullivan (as he then was) concluded
as follows:

'I regard as untenable the proposition that if there is a breach of any one Policy
in a development plan a proposed development cannot be said to be "in
accordance with the plan'

'For the purposes of Section 54A, it is enough that the proposal accords with the
development plan considered as a whole. It does not have to accord with each
and every policy therein.'

This Rochdale judgment is applicable to the interpretation of Section 38(6) of the
2004 Act and the Council must reach a decision, therefore, as to whether the
application is in accordance with the development plan when it is considered as
a whole.

The Unitary Development Plan (the UDP) for Sunderland was adopted in 1998.
On commencement of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (September
2004), the policies of the UDP were automatically 'saved' for three years,
remaining in force until September 2007. The Council subsequently notified the
Government Office of the policies it wished to retain and confirmation from the
Secretary of State of the agreed saved policies was received on 4 September
2007.

The Marine Walk Master Plan, referred to in your correspondence, is not the
development plan, rather it is a document that was developed and adopted by
the Council as supplementary planning guidance which would support and
supplement the development plan where appropriate. The purpose of the Marine
Walk Master Plan is to set out the parameters for the principle of development,
focusing on providing a mix of uses which complement adopted planning and
design policy, with a desire to achieve a range of cultural and tourism uses in
order to provide a safe and pleasant environment for all.

It should be noted that whilst the Marine Walk Master Plan is a material
consideration when determining planning applications, in this area, the starting
point for the determination of any planning application is the development plan
and the relevant national planning policy (National Planning Policy Framework).
With specific reference to planning application ref: 13/00249/FULI can confirm
that the development proposal was considered against all of the relevant policies
contained within both of the aforementioned documents to ascertain compliance
or otherwise with the key land use planning policies for the area. In this regard,
it was considered that in relation to the Marine Walk Master Plan the proposed
development offered a variety of uses which were specifically identified within
the Master Plan as being acceptable, such uses include A1 (retail), A4 (drinking
establishments) and A5 (hot food takeaways). These uses were considered to
be key elements which would support the tourist driven regeneration of the
seafront by proving a range of services.

Similarly, whilst it is acknowledged that the introduction of residential
accommodation and offices is not specifically outlined within the Master Plan
document, it is nevertheless considered that the introduction of such uses would
aid in enhancing the overall vibrancy of the area whilst the residential occupancy
of some, or part, of the upper floor would assist in offering a degree of natural
surveillance and security to the area. On this basis it is considered that the
development is in accordance with the development plan policies, when
considered as a whole, and also the aims and objectives of the Marine Walk
Master Plan.

Therefore, based on the explanation set out above I trust that you now
understand why the proposed development was not in conflict with development
plan policies.

2. 4. The Content of the Design and Access Statement

A Design and Access Statement (DAS) is a succinct report accompanying and
supporting an application to illustrate the process that has led to the
development proposal, and to explain the proposal in a structured way. The level
of detail required in a DAS depends on the scale and complexity of the
application and should be proportionate to the complexity of the application. With
reference to the access element of the statement it is important to note that this
component relates only to access to the development and does not extend to
internal aspects of the development. The internal access arrangements to the
building are covered by Building Regulations in Approved Document M.

With specific reference to the Design and Access Statement which accompanied
the planning application in question I can confirm that having reviewed this
document it is evident that the author, Fitz Architects, was aware of the distinct
difference between the development plan and its associated policies and the
Marine Walk Supplementary Planning Document. In particular, the pages titled
Marine Walk Master Plan, Development Parameters pg1 & 2 of the statement
makes specific reference to the development plan (UDP) and the fact that the
Marine Walk Master Plan is a supplementary planning document. Therefore, it is
apparent from the content of the Design and Access Statement that Fitz
Architects understood the hierarchy of planning policy in this area, that being the
development plan as adopted planning policy and the Marine Walk Master Plan
as adopted supplementary planning guidance which aims to support and
complement the development plan.

Please note that the Government has recently raised the threshold for Design
and Access Statements so that now only applications for major development
and listed building consent must be accompanied by such a statement (a lower
threshold applies in designated areas). The Governments justification for raising
the threshold was largely based upon the fact that they consider that the design
merits and accessibility of smaller development proposals can be adequately
understood without the provision of a statutory Design and Access Statement.

2. 5. All plans produced were developed following major consultation
with specific relevant bodies and the general public

The draft Marine Walk Master Plan underwent public consultation between 8
August and 18 September 2009. Following this consultation period the
document was amended accordingly and adopted by the Council as planning
guidance for Roker seafront in February 2010. I therefore agree with your
statement set out at point 5.

2. 6. No where in any of the strategies / plans produced is reference made
to social housing or offices being part of the regeneration plan

Social housing and an elevated office are not specifically stated in the Marine
Walk Master Plan however the purpose of the Marine Walk Master Plan
Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) is to set out strategic aspirations for
the Marine Walk area and provide development parameters and principles for
the Marine Walk area, which supplement the relevant planning policies
contained within the 1998 Unitary Development Plan the local plan for
Sunderland.

As the Marine Walk Master Plan is an SPD, it cannot allocate land for specific
land uses and therefore cannot dictate the types of development to be delivered.
Individual development proposals are considered on their individual merits, with
regard to their conformity to the aspirations and development guidance within
the Master Plan; and with regard to the relevant land use policies of the Unitary
Development Plan.

2. 7. This planning application does not follow/adhere to any of the
established strategies/plans/policies developed following the Seafront
Consultation Findings Report

Please refer to point 3 above which sets out the policy position in this regard.

2. 8. As the application is clearly contrary to the Councils own adopted
planning policy for this area, for it to be determined by delegated
authority is an abuse of the democratic process

As set out at point 2 above planning application ref: 13/00249/FUL is not in
conflict with the development plan, when considered as a whole and therefore
the proposal does not meet with the criteria, for referral to Planning Committee,
as set down in Part 3 Responsibility for Functions of the Constitution. As such I
can confirm that the Council acting in its capacity as Local Planning Authority
has determined this application in line with policy and procedure.

2. 9. Inaccuracies with the location plan

Following a land registry search undertaken on 28 June 2013 at 10:09am I can
confirm that Beech Bar Leisure (BBL NE as referred to on the application form)
have owned the majority of the application site from 2008 with the Council owing
a small parcel of land. Whilst it is acknowledged that Fitz Architects have
submitted the application, they have done so as agents on behalf of Beech Bar
Leisure who are named as applicants and, as such, there is no procedural
requirement for Beech Bar Leisure to notify themselves of their own planning
application. Therefore, with reference to consultation requirements, in respect of
land ownership, I can confirm that the procedures set down in Articles 11 and 12
of the Development Management Procedure Order 2010 have been complied
with in this regard.

Please note that the LPA accept ownership declarations in good faith and would
not dispute or query the information provided within the application submission
unless an issue was raised by an applicant/agent or another third party. In this
regard I can confirm that no land ownership issues were raised as part of the
application process.

2. 10. Size of the proposed office and commercial space

Proposed office space - Plan ref: AL(0) 02000 Proposed Level 01 Plan of the
application in question is drawn to a scale of 1:100 at A1. At this scale the floor
area to be created for the proposed office space, as illustrated on the
aforementioned plan, measures between 91-99 square metres, whilst each of
the individual commercial units when scaled from plan ref: AL (0) 01000
Proposed Level 00 Plan measure in the region of 70 square metres.

In this regard, and following consultation with South Tyneside Building Control
department, I can confirm that, in general, there are provisions to incorporate a
lift/lifting platform to non-residential properties, however in this instance it is not
considered to be required owing to the fact that Local Authority Building Control
(LABC) services have national agreements that non-residential units under 100
square metres and incorporate no unique features, do not require the provision
of a lift/lifting platform as small commercial units cannot justify the cost and
maintenance of such features. Therefore, based upon the advice offered by
South Tyneside Building Control department, in respect of this application, it is
considered that the issue of access has been considered and the proposed
development meets with the requirements as set out in the Building Regulations
2010, approved Part M (incorporating amendments).

Notwithstanding the above I would also like to stress that the purpose of the
planning system and planning control is to manage the development of land and
buildings, this includes development in, on, over or under land (including
changes of use). In general, planning legislation is concerned with the number,
size, layout, siting and external appearance of buildings, as well as the proposed
use of the development. It is considered that matters relating to the provision of
disabled facilities within a building are more appropriately covered by the
Building Control regime under Part M of The Building Control Regulation 2010
(as amended). Please note however that should the requirements of the Building
Control Regulations bring about external physical changes to the approved
development then the applicant, and or their agent, may be required to submit a
new planning application to address those matters which were not previously
approved.

Any further building control related issues should be addressed to the
appropriate responsible authority, South Tyneside Building Control department.
2. 11. Report from Environmental Health Department

Having reviewed the application file it is apparent that Environment Health
commented on the proposal on 19 April 2013 in respect of land contamination.
Following the receipt of the abovementioned comments the case officer, Philip
Meldrum, sought additional advice in relation to working practices, hours, noise,
vibration etc given the nature of the uses proposed. Further to this request, a
second response was received by Philip on 17 May 2013 which set out the
Environmental Health officers response in this regard. Unfortunately, due to
workload pressures at the time, there was a delay within the administration
section which, in the case of this application, resulted in the comments
appearing on the Councils website after the date of decision. However, as is
apparent from the planning officers delegated report, the comments raised made
by Environmental Health in their second email were given consideration prior to
a decision being made something which is evident from the conditions imposed
on the planning approval. Therefore, based on the above, I can confirm that no
decision was made on this application without the case officer being in receipt of
all of the necessary information in respect of Environmental Health issues.

2. 12. Flood Risk

I can confirm that notwithstanding the declarations provided within the
application submission all applications when received are constraint checked
which includes a check to see whether or not the application site is located
within a flood risk area. In this regard, I can confirm that the application site
subject of this correspondence is not located within an identified flood risk area
and, as such, no further action was required as part of the planning application
process.

2. 13. Consultation with No.2 Pier Cottage

The Council believes that local people have a key role to play in shaping the
quality of their environment, and is committed to involving the community in
planning decisions. Therefore, each valid FUL planning application received by
the LPA is subject to a statutory 21 day consultation period so that the views of
local people, businesses and other interested bodies can be sought on a
development proposal.

I can confirm that with reference to planning application 13/00249/FUL
neighbour notification letters were sent out to 2 Pier Cottage on both 21
February 2013 and also 27 February 2013 advising you of the proposed
development. In this regard I have reviewed the application file and can find no
correspondence from yourself that raises any issues or concerns with the
proposed development.

In addition, please note that in addition to the neighbour consultation letters sent
out the application was also advertised by way of a press notice on 28 February
2013 and site notice on 4 March 2013.

Therefore on the basis of the consultation undertaken, as detailed above, I can
confirm that the LPA has carried out its statutory duty in relation to the publicity
requirements for planning applications documented within the Town and Country
Planning Development Management Procedure Order 2010.


Email to Philip Meldrum received 13 June 2013

2. 14. Title Plan

See response to point 9 above.

Email to Councillor Speding received 15 June 2013

2. 15. Plans have been rubber stamped by a single person and not dealt
with by Planning Committee

See response to point 2 above.

2. 16. The application was pushed through regardless of objections

The planning officers delegated report clearly addresses the concerns raised by
the four individuals who made representation to the proposed development.
Please note that the receipt of representation either for or against a planning
application is not grounds in itself to warrant approval of refusal of the
application.

2. 17. No flood or environmental reports were necessary

As already stated above the application site is not within a highlighted flood risk
area and therefore a flood risk assessment was not required. With reference to
environmental reports and ground stability I can confirm that the Councils
Environmental Health (EH) department were consulted as part of the planning
application process and a number of comments were provided, the details of
which were set out in the officers delegated decision report and enforced by way
of planning conditions on the subsequent approval given. The conditions
imposed cover the following issues:

Odour
Noise
Site investigation
Remediation
Further investigation and risk assessment should any unidentified
contamination be found on the site

Please note that the geotechnical issues raised by EH in their response to the
planning officer are matters which will be dealt with by South Tyneside Building
Control department and any further issues you have in this regard should be
addressed directly to them.

18. The public asked for leisure facilities and toilets as part of the Marine
Walk Master Plan

Please see response to point 3 above.





Email to North Sunderland Planning Committee received 18 June 2013

19. Are rule/guidelines in place that the LPA have to follow when deciding
whether a planning application is delegated to a planning officer as
opposed to requiring a full planning committee decision?

Response provided in FOI and point 2 above.

20. If any serious mistakes are identified in a planning approval will the
LPA be required to revoke planning consent?

Response provided in FOI.

21. If objections are received during the public consultation period does
this now not warrant a full committee decision of a planning application?

Response provided in FOI.

22. If objections are received during the public consultation period are the
issues considered and the author replied to by the LPA.

Response provided in FOI.

23. Why was Mr Murrays objections changed to neutral comment?

When an individual makes representation to a planning application via public
access they are asked to specify whether the comment(s) that they are making
are either (a) in support, (b) in opposition/objection or (c) are neutral. This option
is something that is completed by the individual making the representation at the
time they submit their comments, it is not possible for the LPA to amend this
option.

With specific reference to planning application ref: 13/00249/FUL and having
reviewed the application file, public access and the officers delegated report I
can find no reference to a neutral comment on any of the documentation.

24. If objections are replied to where as a member of the public can I view
the response/decision from the LPA?

Response provided in FOI.

25. Can a planning application be approved when the site plan shows
building development over public land that has not been mentioned during
the planning application?

Response provided in FOI.

26. If location plans submitted to the LPA show incorrect information does
this not render the application invalid?

Response provided in FOI and see point 9 above.

27. As a member of the public where can I access planning conditions
imposed on any application?

Response provided in FOI.

28. Why are public rights of way issues not raised re: Seaburn Shelter
Redevelopment not on the planning portal?

Response provided in FOI.

29. I have requested previous planning applications for this land / area and
all objections and conditions to the planning approvals. My mail / requests
are being ignored, why?

I understand that Joanne Angus, Team Leader Development Management
Technical Support, has contacted you on a number of occasions and a meeting
was held on 11 July 2013 whereby Joanne provided you with access to all of the
relevant files. Following this I understand that Joanne has furnished you with
copies of all of the material that you requested.

30. Why can a member of the public not view the five environmental
conditions placed on this planning approval?

A copy of the decision notice is available online for public inspection should
anyone wish to view it. The document has been available online since 24 May
2013.

31. Why was the application approved more than two weeks before the
report from the Environmental Health department was received? Was this
not relevant to any decision made?

Please see response to point 11 above.

32. Will the development be required to adhere to the Environment Agency
recommendations for the area?

Please see response to point 17 above.

33. Can someone explain why No.2 Pier Cottages was overlooked as being
residential in the planning application procedure and why I never received
any correspondence regarding the application?

Please see response to point 13 above. In addition, to the neighbour
consultation letters sent out the application was also advertised by way of a
press notice on 28 February 2013 and site notice on 4 March 2013.

34. Will the retaining wall at the location be subject to investigation as it is
bulging and shows cracks?

This is a Building Control matter and may I therefore advise you to contact South
Tyneside Building Control department who will assist further on this issue.

35. Will the contaminated land issue be addressed, as was with Adventure
Sunderland Build?

Yes, please see response to point 17 above.

36. If the office part of the development exceeds 100m2 will a lift be
required, in line with legislation?

This is a Building Control matter and may I therefore advise you to contact South
Tyneside Building Control department who will assist further on this issue. You
may also wish to refer back to point 10 above.

37. Why are no issues raised from Environmental Health regarding
contaminated land / potential sewer gas form made ground?

Please see response to point 17 above.

38. Why is there no input from Health and Safety regarding contaminated
land / potential sewer gas from made ground and a retaining wall which
could potentially collapse?

Please see response to point 17 above in respect of contaminated land and gas.
With reference to the stability of the retaining wall may I advise that you contact
South Tyneside Building Control department as this is a Building Control matter.

Email to Philip Meldrum received 21 June 2013

39. Fitz architects office plan shows 8 work stations and a conference
room for 8 people but only one toilet and no disabled access! NO LIFT

The attached best practice note on application of building regulations
CLEARLY states any new build has to be under 50m2 not to require a lift
even then only if low staff numbers i.e. Under 5

I am of the understanding legislation requires this (new build) must have a
lift, plus male and female toilets split 60% 60% and a disabled toilet.

These are Building Control matters and may I therefore advise that you contact
South Tyneside Building Control department who will assist further on the
above.

Email to Office of the Chief Executive Freedom of Information received 21 June
2013

40. Fitz Architects plan does not follow or adhere to the Marine Walk
Master Plan. Nowhere in the plan does it mention social housing or an
architects office. As it does not follow the plan can you please advise me
why it has been approved.

Social housing and an elevated office are not specifically stated in the Marine
Walk Master Plan however the purpose of the Marine Walk Master Plan
Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) is to set out strategic aspirations for
the Marine Walk area and provide development parameters and principles for
the Marine Walk area, which supplement the relevant planning policies
contained within the 1998 Unitary Development Plan the local plan for
Sunderland.

As the Marine Walk Master Plan is an SPD, it cannot allocate land for specific
land uses and therefore cannot dictate the types of development to be delivered.
Individual development proposals are considered on their individual merits, with
regard to their conformity to the aspirations and development guidance within
the Master Plan; and with regard to the relevant land use policies of the Unitary
Development Plan.

41. Fitz Architects office plan shows 8 work stations and a conference
room for 8 people but only one toilet, and no disabled access! NO LIFT

This is a Building Control matter and may I therefore advise that you contact
South Tyneside Building Control department who will assist further on this issue.

42. The best practice note on application of building regulations CLEARLY
states any new build has to be under 50m2 not to require a lift even then
only if low staff numbers, i.e. Under 5, practice note on application of
Building Regulations

This is a Building Control matter and may I therefore advise that you contact
South Tyneside Building Control department who will assist further on this issue.

43. I am of the understanding legislation requires this (new build) must
have a lift, plus male and female toilets split 60%/60% and a disabled toilet.

Can you please explain why this application has been approved without
adherence to relevant legislation.

This is a Building Control matter and may I therefore advise that you contact
South Tyneside Building Control department who will assist further on this issue.

Email to Emma Louise Swinburn received 24 June 2013

44. Building Control advice

The queries raised are in relation to Building Control matters and may I therefore
advise that you contact South Tyneside Building Control department will assist
further.

Email to Office of the Chief Executive Freedom of Information received 25 June
2013

45. Marine Walk Master Plan states a new access / stairway. Has this now
been rethought due to this new development ref: 13/00249/FUL

No, this element of the Master Plan has not been rethought. Section 5 of the
Marine Walk Master Plan identifies the potential for the implementation of an
access stairway between Bungalow caf and Marine Walk. The potential to
deliver this element of the plan still exists and will be explored further should the
opportunity arise.

46. Where in the Marine Walk Master plan is it stated that social housing
and an elevated office is what the public asked for or would be good for
the development of the area?

Please see response to point 6 and 40 above.

47. Please inform me how this plan contributes towards meeting the
requirements of current policy, frameworks and guidance, especially the
Master Plan. It will massively increase traffic flow and car parking in the
area and the need for delivery vans to service retail units how does this sit
within the Marine Walk Master Plan.

An assessment of the proposals compliance with the requirements of current
policy and guidance, including the Marine Walk Master Plan, is available in the
relevant planning application delegated decision report, via the Councils Public
Access website.

With regard to traffic flows and parking, the proposal was considered by the
Councils Network Management team. Their comments relating to parking
provision for the proposal are available via the Councils Public Access website.

Whilst the Marine Walk Master Plan seeks to minimise conflict between
pedestrians and vehicles, and indicates relevant landscaping and traffic calming
measures, it is not a specific aspiration of the plan to reduce the amount of traffic
in the area.

48. The servicing requirements for the retail units has not received detailed
consideration. The Marine Walk Master Plan identifies problems in the area
regarding conflict between motorised vehicles and pedestrians. The fact
these retail units will require daily delivers has not been mentioned or
addressed within the planning application.

The issues of parking and servicing are explicitly mentioned in the consultee
response provided by Street Scene Network Management to this application.
The comments state that Marine Walk is currently subject to alterations and
improvements as part of the Councils Public Realm Master Plan.

The proposals are generally acceptable in terms of parking/servicing
arrangements. The proposed residents parking bays will require provision for
footway crossing (vehicle access). This will require the removal of the adjacent
traffic calming pinch point. The applicant should contact the Councils Planning
Implementation Section regarding co-ordination of these works.

49. As this plan is in conflict with all plans and policies for development in
the area is it the case that this plan will be revoked.

No, it is not the intention of the City Council to revoke the Marine Walk Master
Plan.

Email to Mark Taylor received 28 June 2013

50. Reading the delegated report for the new proposed development on the
former Jobes caf site I see no mention of sight lines north and south.
Adventure Sunderland was made to go back from the pavement to retain
the views north and south. May I ask why no mention was made to these
issues during the recent planning application?

The adopted planning guidance for the Roker Park Conservation Area - the
'Roker Park Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Strategy
(CAMS)'identifies key views within the Conservation Area, these predominantly
being views into the conservation area from the sea and Pier, panoramic views
along the coastline and views out to sea from the conservation area. It doesnt
identify views north and south along Marine Walk as key views. It does however
identify the Jobes Caf site as a development opportunity.

Management Proposal 6a of the CAMS specifically deals with development
proposals along Marine Walk. A key consideration in assessing the Jobe's caf
site application was the impact on the proposed development on views looking
back from the sea and Pier into the conservation area, and more specifically its
impact on the relationship between the lower (Marine Walk) and upper (Roker
Terrace) promenades and the grassed embankment that provides a green break
between them. It was considered important that the development was limited to
a height which allowed a reasonable amount of the grassed embankment to
remain visible above the roofline of the buildings thus retaining the green break
between the promenades. Proposal 6a also requires innovative designs for new
buildings that could draw inspiration from the timber framed buildings that
historically characterised the lower promenade, albeit in a contemporary design
approach.

In assessing the development proposals for the Jobes Caf site the Council's
Heritage Protection Team were satisfied that the scale, form and design of the
buildings satisfies the above requirements.

Email to Danielle Pearson received 2 July 2013

51. May mail was accepted as an official complaint on 12 June. The
complaints procedure states: The first stage should be completed within
14 days from receipt of all relevant information and a response made to the
appellant in writing.

Whilst it is acknowledged that ordinarily the Council will aim to respond to all
Stage 1 complaints within 15 working days I personally responded to the above
email on 3 July setting out why the investigation into your concerns/queries had
not been responded to within the aforementioned timescale. Within my email of
3 July I asked that any further issues/complaints should be sent to myself by no
later than 5 July in order that your complaint could be addressed in a
comprehensive manner and to avoid further delay in the investigation.

Email to Danielle Pearson received 5 July 2013

52. Why were my living conditions / privacy not considered during this
planning application?

The delegated report, in the section headed The impact of the proposal on the
amenity of nearby residents clearly identifies 1 and 2 Pier Cottages and makes
reference to a recent planning approval in 2013 which sought to change the use
of the premises from residential to part residential and part commercial (caf/hot
food takeaway). Therefore, I would have to dispute that your living
conditions/privacy were not considered during this planning application.

53. Why were the conditions applied to ref: 03/02413/FUL not applied to
13/00249/FUL?

The current proposal is considered to be acceptable and reasonable within the
context of the Master Plan aspirations, and the delivery requirements are
equivalent to the requirements for existing premises along Marine Walk.

Enforcement of parking regulations is now within the control of the City
Council, and motorists are obliged to make use of existing car parks rather than
parking on-street in contravention of the yellow lines. Access to the existing
southern car park is also to be improved.

54. Are the proposed buildings compliant to the above requirement? (The
Marine Walk Master Plan must respond to the surrounding development
and landscape. Building heights be no higher than the existing built form)

It is considered that the two storey nature of the buildings proposed is consistent
with the other two storey buildings located at Marine Walk

Furthermore, as stated in the officer report, the prominence of the building would
be further reduced by the falling gradient of land to the west.

In addition, it is considered that the design of the proposed buildings provide a
sympathetic response to the marine location and the Heritage team consulted on
the proposal confirmed that the siting, scale and orientation of the buildings
would respond positively and sympathetically to the listed Pier and Roker Pier
cottages located opposite.

55. If Network Management deemed it necessary to install traffic calming
measures why has it now decided that this particular traffic pinch point is
not required?

The development proposal was submitted on the basis that the Councils Master
Plan scheme is implemented prior to the development taking place. This scheme
includes improved surface treatment and features, and involves the removal of
the existing symmetrical traffic calming pinch points and replacement with
asymmetrical pinch points.

The comment was made that implementation of the development proposal
therefore may need to be coordinated with the roadworks for the Councils
scheme. These roadworks are now underway (August 2013).

56. Why was it a condition of ref: 03/02413/FUL that deliveries would only
be allowed between 22:00hrs and 10:00hrs but not considered relevant in
planning application ref: 13/00249/FUL

Please refer to point 53 above.

57. All the plans and consultations mentioned traffic problems so why is a
car parking management scheme not required for this development?

Please refer to point 53 above.

58. There are only 5 car parking spaces for the whole development

The existing car parks operated by the Council have capacity to accommodate
additional demand generated by this development and other attractions.

The peak parking demand for the business use of the premises is not expected
to coincide with peak recreational demand.

59. I have sent mail explaining there is a problem with ground gases in the
area and they have been ignored. Why?

Please see response to point 17 above.

60. Has B2 of the UDP policy changed or is the Councils interpretation of
the policy, which now allows the building of 2 offices and houses on
Marine Walk.

I can confirm that neither the wording nor interpretation of Policy B2 has
changed. Policy B2 of the adopted UDP relates to new developments and
extensions to existing buildings and states that their scale, massing, layout or
setting should `respect and enhance the best qualities of nearby properties and
the locality and retain acceptable levels of privacy. In this regard and as detailed
within the delegated report it is clear that the developments design principles
have been thoroughly considered, with the form, styling and materials taking
inspiration from the traditional timber buildings that historically lined the lower
promenade. The 'beach hut' appearance of the proposed buildings would
present a distinct and innovative form of development that would compliment the
character of Marine Walk. Therefore, the proposed development does clearly
accord with the requirements of Policy B2.

61. As this development does not sit in the scope of the Marine Walk
Master Plan or the Seafront Regeneration Strategy does it not need to be
decided by the planning committee for the area?

Please see response to point 2 and 3 above.

62. Why was it that Adventure Sunderland was required to go into than
bank thus maintaining the views but this development is not required to do
the same?

Please see response to point 50 above.

63. Will the award winning lighting scheme go ahead as originally planned
or will this development also change the award winning design of lighting
for Marine Walk?

A conceptual lighting scheme was developed during for the consultation on the
Marine Walk Phase II public realm improvements in September 2012. Since
then the scheme has evolved further, including the modification of the scheme to
ensure that there was no potential conflict with the proposed development
submitted by Fitz Architect for planning approval in February 2013. It is our
opinion that although the lighting scheme has been modified, it does not affect
the integrity of the overall promenade lighting scheme for Marine Walk.

64. Will a path from the Bungalow Caf down to Marine Walk still be
introduced or has this delegated decision report effectively removed it
from the plans?

Section 5 of the Marine Walk Masterplan identifies the potential for the
implementation of an access stairway between Bungalow caf and Marine Walk.
The potential to deliver this element of the plan still exists and will be explored
further should the opportunity arise.

Emails to Danielle Pearson received 30 July 2013

65. Regarding my complaints sent on 5 July 2013 the attached appeals and
complaints procedure informs me I should have had a reply by now?

I responded to your email of 5 July 2013 that same day advising you that a
response to all of your concerns would be provided by 16 August 2013.

66. The attached document referred to is Sunderland City Council
Complaints Procedure and for your information it states the following; The
first stage should be completed within 14 days of the receipt of all relevant
information and a response made to the appellant in writing. I started to
complain to planning officer Mr. Meldrum on the 3rd of June. I contacted
the council leader Mr. Watson on the 13th of June.

On the 5th of July I sent you as requested the questions I require an
answer to. At that stage I made myself perfectly clear I would not ask
anymore questions until I had the answer to the mail I sent.

The Complaints Procedure has not being followed it states reply should be
within 14 working days. Since I sent you the mail on the 5th July 18
working days have passed. Since I contacted the council leader on the
13th of June (I was promised a reply from the council leader) 33 working
days have passed. Since I contacted Mr Meldrum on the 3rd of June
requesting a reply to my concerns 42 working days have passed.

This is not only unsatisfactory but also very unprofessional and I feel that
you are deliberately delaying this for an ulterior motive. You have stated
that I will now have to wait until the 16th of August for a reply this is totally
unacceptable.

Whilst I note your frustration at the time it has taken to compile a response to all
of the different pieces of correspondence that you have submitted I am aware
that Philip Meldrum did initially engage in dialogue with you however when it
became apparent that similar enquiries/complaints were being directed to other
individuals and sections within the authority the decision was taken to appoint
one individual who would receive all such correspondence and compile one
response to the many issues raised. Please be assured that there has been no
deliberate delay or ulterior motive in the investigation of your complaint and that
the decision to provide one comprehensive response to you was made in the
interests of both parties.

Email to David Horn received 5 August 2013

67. Can I amend the current planning application to include A4 Drinking
Establishment. Do I need to submit change of use form (PE2) to the LPA?

I understand that David Horn replied to your email at 10:02 on 5 August 2013
however it would appear from your email to Daniel Hattle on 6 August 2013 that
you never received Davids reply of 5 August. In this regard, I can confirm that
the email was resent to [email protected] on 6 August 2013 which included
the email chain between yourself and David on 5 August 2013 (a copy can be
provided if required). Daniel Hattle then received a further email on 7 August
2013 asking Is it a fact that no one in Sunderland City Council will reply to my
emails. In this regard I understand from discussions with Daniel Hattle that he
replied to your email at 13:53 on 7 August advising you that both David Horn
and myself had replied to the general enquiry received 5 August and raising the
possibility that there may be a firewall blocking emails. I am also aware that
Daniel Hattle telephoned you to check that you had received his email of 7
August at 13:53.

Email to the Leader of Sunderland City Council received 6 August 2013

68. I have still not had a reply which is well out of the time restraints set in
Sunderland Councils Complaints Procedure. I have been informed by the
LGO that I cannot get them to look at the issues I have raised until 3
months have passed. One month left!
I intend if necessary to employ the services of Dr Anton Lang MRTPI to
resolve the issues within the delegated decision report.
I respectfully request you contact the relevant council officers and remind
them of the time restraints set in Sunderland City Councils Complaints
Procedure.

I understand that Margaret Douglas has replied to your email on 7 August 2013
explaining why it was not possible for the Council to respond to your
complaint/queries/enquiries within the suggested 15 working days.


I trust that the above answers your complaints however should you remain dissatisfied
with this response you can request that your complaint is reviewed on behalf of the
Chief Executive by the Complaints and Feedback Team, by writing to
FREEPOST COMPLAINTS AND FEEDBACK or via email to
[email protected].






Yours Sincerely



Deputy Chief Executive


Name Danielle Pearson
Title Development Control Manager
Direct Line 0191 561 8755
E-mail [email protected]