Planning Application at Land On The Former Malmo And Spillers Quays
Planning Application at Land On The Former Malmo And Spillers Quays
2021/2404/01/EIA
Land On The Former Malmo And Spillers Quays On The North Bank Of The River Tyne Quayside Road, Newcastle Upon Tyne.
We recently consulted on an amended submission for the above application. Due to the number of documents which had been uploaded to the Planning Portal since the application was originally submitted in 2021 we were made aware that interested parties were unable to view the latest plans and we therefore made the decision to temporarily remove some of the historic files/documents including previous objections.
- Should you wish to view the historic documents these will be uploaded to this web page soon.
The latest set of plans can be viewed at the following here. Should you wish to make a new comment can you please submit these via the Newcastle Public Portal.
Please also note our guidance here on how to use the Public Access system and what issues can or can't be considered in a public representation.
The page may be a little bit slow to open, as there is a large amount of information to load. There may also be a delay when clicking the Submit Comments button - please don't click it more than once as this may create several copies of the comment.
Any new comments received in response to the most recent round of consultation will be available to view via the Newcastle Public Portal.
All comments should be made via the public portal link above, but if you have any questions or problems accessing the information you can email us here.
This web page will be regularly updated.
6th May 2025
Public Access Comments
We have temporarily removed the previously received comments from our page on the Public Access portal, as the large volume of content was causing the page to crash and be inaccessible. As a temporary workaround, the comments are available to view below. You can still submit comments as normal on the Portal.
Recent comments on the amendment will be published on the usual public portal. We are currently working to make these Live as soon as possible.
| Comments | Created On | Consultation Stance |
| Hi, I'm one of many highly concerned residents of Mariners Wharf adjacent to the site. We have a residents Whatsapp group and while most accept that new houses need to be built, an 18 story building utterly inappropriate for the area. The Ouseburn has a great community and feels like a village within a city. A huge tower will massively take away from the community and I really hope it is objected to. New houses and flats up to 4/5 stories (like mariners wharf) would be accepted but not any higher. | 01/01/2022 | Object |
| The flats are not in keeping with the quayside, or Newcastle in general, it will increase footfall congestion on an already busy quayside. During the pandemic people living in Mariners Wharf struggled to walk outside of their own home due to volume of people and this project will only increase footfall to a disproportionate level. Are there enough medical and school facilities in the area for another 73 dwellings? Also Mariners Wharf residence should not be subject to more traffic on the road behind their homes. How will the tower block be accessed? This project will spoil the whole Ouseburn community. | 01/01/2022 | Object |
| Any development on this site should be a similar height to the Mariners Wharf development. The proposed development is an eyesore which ruins the famous view down the river. Does saying the site is not viable without a tower block not just mean they have paid too much for it? | 01/01/2022 | Object |
| Please can you confirm why: 1) No view points have been provided from Riverside Walk 2) The properties at The Mailings have been excluded from the Daylight and Sunlight Light Assessment? These all seem close enough to be affected - especially as they are north / north east of the proposed tower so would appear to be one of the most affected properties. | 02/01/2022 | Neutral |
| I'm a resident of the nearby St. Peters Basin where I have lived for six years, and before that I lived in Ouseburn Wharf which overlooks the proposed development. I appreciate previous developments in the area carried out by Igloo (such as The Malings) which have been a welcome improvement, but I have serious concerns about this proposed development. I have two main concerns : 1) Ruining of iconic views of the River Tyne (e.g. from the Free Trade Inn), with an ugly tower block which is not in-keeping with the surrounding buildings in height or style of construction. It will stick out like a sore thumb. 2) The knock-on effect on car parking in the surrounding area. As residents of St Peters Basin we are already very concerned about the impact of the Whey Aye wheel development on traffic congestion and overcrowding of public transport. We are particularly concerned about the potential for a significant increase in the number of visitors to the area parking in the limited spaces around our currently quiet neighbourhood, due to wholly inadequate parking provision for the new tourist attraction. This development will further compound the problem by developing part of the existing free car park on Spillers Quay and increasing demand for parking with the addition of a significant number of new residential dwellings. I welcome development of this currently mostly undeveloped site, but I would prefer for to be used for something else which benefits local residents and adds to (rather than detracts from) the aesthetics of the area, such developing the green space into a public park. | 10/01/2022 | Object |
| There have been a lot of proposals for this site, and this is by far the best I've seen. Being such a prominent site, it's important that whatever is built here provides a high quality focal point marking this end of the quayside. In my opinion that is what this proposal offers. Overall the design and materials look to be high quality, and the massing appropriate to the site. While it is tricky to get the tower element of the scheme right, I'm confident that from most angles it will look good. It is a landmark building that will provide visual interest, but is not excessively large such that it would dominate the area. The only thing I'd like to criticise about the tower is its north elevation, which feels heavier, lacks the level of detailing, and has fewer and smaller windows than the other sides - it feels very much like the 'back' of the tower with much less attention given to it, and yet it is as visible as the other elevations. It would be nice to see this broken up a bit with some more detailing and perhaps larger windows on the upper levels to give it more visual interest when viewed from the north. My only other comment is that the pedestrian routes through the Malmo Quay site don't really follow existing desire lines. The development looks to be quite pedestrian focussed which is good, but it would perhaps benefit neighbouring areas more if it offered a direct (and visible) south west to north east pedestrian route between the east quayside and the entrance to the Ouseburn Valley. Though I think there are ways to improve this scheme, overall I am very much in support of what looks to be highest quality proposal I've seen for this site by far. | 11/01/2022 | Support |
| The low level buildings appear to be inkeeping and I woudl support. The tower block is a monstrosity and destroys what I view as one of the business locations in Newcastle. The impact this has on an open aspect of the Tyne and the Tyne Bridge from the Free Trade pub is total madness - it has the potential to destroy the golden egg which is mixed development in the area. The area is under threat of being over developed as each piece of land becomes a high rise block. The existing larger buildings are already showing their age and cheap building materials which is already adversely affecting the look and feel of the area. The development of the plan has to be done WITH hte community not to the community and its clear that the City Council is not doing this - its focus is on short term money not on sympethetic development. Abandon the tower block. | 11/01/2022 | Object |
| The proposed cycle hub is a vanity project and blocks the iconic curve in the river and the cityscape with the iconic bridges of the Tyne blocked. The riverscape cityscape Tyne gorge with the historic bridges diminished by a vanity project cycle hub when a perfectly good cycle hub is so near and proposed to be demolished is wanton vandalism. The proposed Southern blocks on the rivers edge also dimmish the riverscape and public realm. There is enough room on the Spillars site to make up any loss of revenue by omitting these blots on the landscape, Would you block the view of the dome on Saint Paul's cathedral in London , no so don't block the wonderful curve of the river and Quayside, they belong to the citizens of Newcastle and Tyneside. It is called the public realm and respect it. I have no objection to the Tower Block as it is set back and does not interfer with the wonderful riverscape of the Tyne. | 11/01/2022 | |
| The proposal for an 18 storey apartment block is absurd and would irreparably damage the Tyne river gorge site lines, views and general appearance. Any rhetoric within the proposal is nonsense and the tower is simply about making the project more viable. I can bet that none of designers live, work or have any history within the area, otherwise they wouldn’t be proposing this monstrosity. Bad enough we are going to have a Ferris wheel with a cinema complex attached, further down river. The tower simply needs to be replaced within this application with a building akin (in height etc) to the others proposed, | 15/01/2022 | Object |
| This proposed development is totally out of character with the surrounding area and will be to the severe detriment of the amenity of the area. Previous developments on the eastern section of the quayside have been limited in their height and impact. It would be perverse to allow this out of scale building to destroy the unique appearance of the historic banked landscape running down to the river. | 16/01/2022 | Object |
| I wish to object to this application on the following grounds, It is not at all in keeping with the area. 18 stories is completely out of character with any building on the quayside in terms of size, scale, appearance and density. The proposed buildings in spillers car park area are vague in description. They will block daylight and create shadows on the buildings behind. This will also result in the loss of much-needed car parking in the area many of which use it to work in Newcastle. Traffic will increase on already busy access points. Massive noise disturbance will occur during the building works which I have no doubt will affect the protected seabirds (Kittiwakes) which use the tyne bridge and this area for breeding. Has this aspect been considered? Although not grounds alone for objecting, but in addition to the above there will also be a loss of views from the Free Trade Inn and a lot of the buildings on Ouseburn wharf. Decreasing the values and enjoyment of the properties. Overall there are many reasons to reject this application in full which I hope the planning department do. | 20/01/2022 | Object |
| This will restrict views , be an eyesore to the quayside and may make businesses suffer due to the view restrictions, for example the free trade in and the Tyne bar, both historical pubs. | 21/01/2022 | Object |
| Eye sore - ruin one of the great remaining areas of the city. Not in keeping, hideous creation that has only been allowed this far as I’m sure there’s Councillor’s pay packets to top up. How to ruin a great city - shit building, shit people and shit craic | 22/01/2022 | Object |
| The sheer height of this new building is going to look awful and overshadow the Ouseburn area. | 22/01/2022 | Object |
| The pubs at the Ouseburn are an important part of our history and culture. This new residential block will not only obscure the view of our beautiful river Tyne and bridges, but it will ruin the atmosphere by making it much more built up. The free trade in particular will suffer - they are known for the view of the river and losing this may significantly affect the number of people going through their doors. Please protect the Ouseburn and don't approve this application! | 22/01/2022 | Object |
| Residents and businesses already mostly cannot access fibre internet, have disproportionately low access to parking, are poorly served by public transport, and face well documented problems with litter and waste removal. Adding so substantially to the population density will exacerbate these issues and damage the quality of life of those who already live and work there. Secondly, the visual impact of the tower block on the river landscape will be of huge detriment to our city. It will substantially change the historic and iconic quayside that we are famous for and which brings tourism to our city. We must learn from what happened in Liverpool, which lost it its UNESCO heritage world status as development had led to an “irreversible loss” to the historical value of its Victorian docks. To follow in the footsteps of such a public humiliation would impact our city’s economy through tourism and culture, and hold us back from attracting and retaining a talented workforce by making it a less desirable place to live. With 7 listed buildings in areas adjacent to the area proposed for development further insight must be provided on how such a substantial change to the landscape they exist within meets the legal requirements to protect their character, sense of place and heritage value. | 22/01/2022 | Object |
| This is an unnecessary plan there are hundreds of properties in the area for sale/empty. More to this it will ruin the area with its height | 22/01/2022 | Object |
| - The Scale of the tower block clock is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End, the quaint nature of Ouseburn draws visits to the area, something like this will certainly deter visitors. - A building of this size will also be significantly bigger than others in this area, blocking sun light. - This development will also undoubtedly contribute to significantly noise disturbance. | 22/01/2022 | Object |
| This is an abomination of a plan which is destroying one of the most iconic views of the Tyne. This would be disastrous for the Ouseburn ruining an area that has gone from strength to strength over the last 10 years. To put such a building proposal in place initially they clearly have no clue on the importance of this location and what it means to the locals. This will have a major negative impact on local pubs such as the Free Trade and Tyne Bar. In no world would someone with any decency want to impact this area in such a negative way. | 22/01/2022 | Object |
| The Scale and massing of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for it's location. The overall view of the beige block is not fitting with the history and surrounding buildings. Even though car parking has been mentioned the amount of available car parking in the Ouseburn is very limited and will be more so for additional properties and the number of residents | 22/01/2022 | Object |
| There are several reasons I object to this building. 1. It’s an eyesore on a beautiful landscape. It’s incredibly ugly and will be a blot in an iconic view. 2. It will impact trade and the famous Free Trade Inn. The council may feel this isn’t important but I would argue it’s incredibly important to maintain the iconic view from the Free Trade. The Free Trade has stood there for decades. It is a personal place of real importance for many. In my family alone my parents when on their first date their in the 80s. They’ve now been happily married for over 30 years and come to the free trade every week. I spent my childhood looking out into the view of the river Tyne from the Free Trade and even now make regular visits. It’s important for tourism too. The Free Trade was featured in the Guardians 10 best pubs with a view. It is also in many “must visit articles” when in Newcastle. I take many of my non-geordie friends to The Free Trade to marvel at this view and then walk along the quayside. This block of flats will completely destroy this and will have a negative impact on the economy of the Ouseburn. I am extremely opposed to the plans and in honesty angry that it is even being considered! Especially when I have anocdotally heard that many of the flats along the quayside lie empty. | 22/01/2022 | Object |
| This development is massively out of scale and proportion with the surrounding context. The tower is obviously far too tall and sets a damaging precedent for the Ouseburn area. The intense prevailing densification of this part of Newcastle is damaging to the historic character of the area. This application being a severe example of this. Whilst i do agree this site should have some form of development, it must be significantly less dense and reflect the existing heights of its neighbours and character of the area. The lower blocks are of a more reasonable scale but are contextless and have no relationship to the history of the area or architectural language of Newcastle. The cafe / cycle hub building should also reduce in height and potentially an inappropriate building use. Whilst this should certainly be a public building/ space, the public square should address the water rather than facing into all of the residential entrances. The massing of this cafe building is particularly overbearing from long distance views and is damaging to the character of the Tyne riverside character. | 22/01/2022 | Object |
| I have grace concerns on the impact of this proposed project. I am concerned not only of the visual impact this will have on the local area, ruining the impact the beautiful quayside view has on local businesses. I am also hugely concerned about how the proposed number of homes does not match with the proposed parking provision. The average UK household has 1 car per adult, i already struggle to find space to park, which as a disabled driver means I have issues accessing the ouseburn area, and the new housing provision being proposed will only aggravate this issue. I am also concerned about the construction time and how this will influence local living both during construction and after. The huge number of people who will be moving into this accommodation will put even greater pressure (which seems to have had little or no consideration) on the already strained local infrastructure (roads and public transport), this will also be hugely affected during construction, overall making the ouseburn even more challenging to access for those who travel in and out of it for pleasure, living and work. I am all for more housing being developed in our beautiful city, however I feel this amount of investment would be better suited to a brownfield site with better access, public transport links, and less of a visual impact on the quayside area which has a more considered approach to local businesses, living and long term impact. I feel this proposed development is too big for the area it is being squeezed into and has been poorly considered in many regards. | 22/01/2022 | Object |
| This is a terrible idea. It will have a serious negative effect on the whole area. The scale and massing of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for it's location. - Quality of design; A beige 18 story tower block in such a prominent position. Does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. - Parking; The submitted plans for Malmo Quay appear to only show 18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block, woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. Please do not let this go ahead for these and many more reasons. | 22/01/2022 | Object |
| The proposed development is not in keeping with the surrounding area, especially if the residential tower block element is included. Whilst I appreciate there is no such thing as a right to a view, the nearby Free Trade Inn is a local landmark attracting people from outside the area due to the reputation for its views along the quayside. Which will be severely impacted by this development. The roads are not suitable for the amount of traffic already present without the increase in traffic that would result from this development, particularly during rush hour. The Cycle Hub provides an excellent public amenity and promotes wellbeing of the local public due to their provision of cycles - where would they be re-located? It is also an excellent spot for people to meet and enjoy views of the river. There does not seem to be anything included in the proposals to promote the wellbeing and sustainability of wildlife in the area - a key area that needs addressing given the risks we face to climate change and the health of local wildlife. I agree that the Quayside requires investment but to simply add more flats and accommodation is not the answer. We are extremely luck to have the quayside/Ouseburn area and much more consideration should be given as to how we use this space to promote small businesses, local wildlife and the local area. I think consideration should be given to introduction of further green space within the development for use by the wider public, rather than segregating the area further as a residential development. The commercial spaces available in nearby developments are not yet fully occupied, so i cant see how the introduction of additional space is going to be of any further benefit to the area. | 22/01/2022 | Object |
| The building is not fitting with the buildings surrounding it, it's far too tall, and if we're all honest, it's absolutely ugly. I could imagine a block like this looking lovely in Byker, or maybe in some part of urban Gateshead, but on our picturesque quayside? Not only this, but public transport to this area isn't great, in fact, the roads are quite narrow, and a building with so many people in is going to cause congestion and endangerment along the cycle path. This could lead to less people cycling, a lot of people even travel up to Newcastle to cycle from the quayside to the coast. The views will be destroyed, and it'll be a stain on the beautiful scenery we are so lucky to have in Newcastle. I urge you to consider scrapping this project, every single person I have spoken to about it hugely opposes it. | 22/01/2022 | Object |
| I’m saddened by the increasing development of the Ouseburn, because I think that the insensitive, plans are taking away from what makes the area so special. It’s become a crown jewel for Newcastle upon Tyne. But over development take away the very atmosphere that made the land so valuable in the first place,The 18 story tower is insensitive to homes that were already enjoying the view that that their developers were so keen to cash in on. The Ouseburn Valley is an industrial hub and a bohemian quarter of the city. High rises flats have no place in it. This build should not be attempting to be a land mark. But should be blending in with the surroundings. The pubs, small businesses and artisits’ studios are what makes this area so special. They need to be respected and taken into account. The Free Trade is a draw for many and one of only a handful of independent pubs in the city. Please look after it. And do not spoil the tremendous views from the bar and beer garden. When my family visited from Australia it was the first place I took them. Geordie pride, the local pub, with the best view in Toon. Please do not take that from this community. | 22/01/2022 | Object |
| It’s disgusting and shouldn’t ha | 22/01/2022 | Object |
| Why ruin one of the most picturesque areas of Newcastle with a misplaced tower block. It’ll stick out like a sore thumb. Total blot | 22/01/2022 | Object |
| No!!!!!!!!! Surely not! | 22/01/2022 | Object |
| A building out of touch with the area, which brings short term income to the council from the initial project, but longer term damages and risks destroying the income from the many visitors and regular patrons of the ouseburn social scene. Surely a council that is in touch with its modern heritage can see this obvious risk. It would be a scandal to see something of such a.juxtaposed mismatch be allowed to progress to appease land owners and developers, ahead of citizens and future users of as special a place as the ousrburn. Absolutely abject proposal. Save our ouseburn. Save our city heritage. | 22/01/2022 | Object |
| I object to this proposed development for the following reasons. Firstly, the building is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area as (1) the style does not fit in with the historical/industrial setting of the quayside/ouseburn area, (2) the sheer size of the building totally over shadows others and thus does not fit in with the surrounding area and; (3) the increased traffic that the development will attract will be dangerous for the many pedestrians that walk around there and significantly increase the risk for cyclists on the designated cycling route. Further, this will increase the noise pollution and; (5) because the quayside/ouseburn is loosing its unique character with all the gentrification/development this could result in decrease business for the local businesses. | 22/01/2022 | Object |
| The Scale and massing of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for it's location. There's very little merit in a beige 18 story tower block in such a prominent position. Does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. The submitted plans for Malmo Quay appear to only show 18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block, woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. | 22/01/2022 | Object |
| This will take away from the esthetics of this particular area which has already been over developed. | 22/01/2022 | Object |
| I strongly object to a tower block in the ouseburn. I belive this will be an eye sore on the view of the tyne from the free trade Inn. This is a known local beauty spot and would be scared by this development. | 22/01/2022 | Object |
| Newcastle has the most beautiful Quayside area with open plan walks & views which are a delight when visiting the area. The proposal to build something so big & also aesthetically ugly is something we just don’t need in this city. I’ll use London as an example in which the skyline has changed forever for all the wrong reasons. It’s an ugly skyline now & Newcastle is very quickly heading that way if this building work is agreed. The building of 3Sixty was acceptable as that didn’t affect the general skyline of the city but this proposed building will be very obvious & very intrusive. It will also add to the carbon footprint of the area which will have an overall poor effect on the waterways in the area including the Ouseburn flowing into the Tyne. We should be seeing buildings which will have less detrimental effect not only on the aesthetics of our beautiful city but also environmentally & I’m thoroughly afraid that this proposed building work will damage it forever changing the landscape into just another badly designed skyline like London. Please don’t do this to our city & instead focus on the smaller buildings & the renovation of older historically interesting buildings. I severely object to this building proposal. | 22/01/2022 | Object |
| I feel the proposed development of this location will have a very detrimental effect on the surrounding area. It will block a wonderful view for many locals and could impact in terms of flood risk. The heritage of this area, which is extremely close to ky heart as my family are all from the Ouseburn. The building items totally out of place to the surroundings. This is not wanted or needed in Ouseburn. | 22/01/2022 | Object |
| I strongly object to this application. The effect on the rest of this very special site will be horrendous. The design is far too high and wholly out of keeping with all the rest of the general Quayside development. The size and overall appearance is grotesque. This application at Malmo Quay strikes me as a cynical attempt to ask for something ridiculous in this area so that they are encouraged to move the building further along to Spillers quay where it will be easier to justify its construction on account of many of us having a memory of the Spillers building there that was this high. There is no need for great technical knowledge here- jthe building looks awful from every angle and it is inconceivable that the applicants actually have anything they can say in order to justify erecting such a monstrosity. Also the number of apartments is ridiculously larger than the number of car park spaces. But even if it had enough car parking this would be a horrible thing to look at and for ever more it would be a permanent embarrassment, professionally speaking, for any planner or council who permited it | 22/01/2022 | Object |
| The size, appearance, layout and density of the proposed development: The appearance of the proposed 18-storey tower building is not well designed. - For one, the top bits of the building where there are hollowed floors does not contribute to real issues (e.g. ventilation, sunlight). - These open balconies (or the 'terrace' as depicted in documents such as MQ-WAB-01-17-DR-A-01024) for the top floors rather severely increase the risks of pedestrians, cyclists and cars, as apparently any things being stored in the balconies will be easily blown off given the level of wind strengh in that spot. - It will be better off for the entire surrounding community if the top floors are just removed from the design. - The framed structure surrounding the façade of the building look pointless and does not increase its aesthetics in any ways. - The proposed building does not enhance the skyline of Newcastle-Gateshead quaysides. It rather generates a bulky break to the skyline. - Taking into both sunlight directions and wind strength, the hollowed part of the building should rather be placed in the lowered-to-mid-floors, e.g. floor 3 to 5 or floor 6 to 9. This would potentially enhance the road visibility of Byker Bank and A186 bridge on Ouseburn. There can be much better work to work around the current design if this is such a difficult site and the profitability is such an important matter. Without better design in architect term, its commodity value would be very much limited. Daylight, sunlight and overshadowing: - The sheer size of the 18-storey building would rather overshadow the entire surroundings, which include the whole part of Tyne river at the estuary of the Ouseburns and the existing site next to the proposed building. - The existing buildings next to the proposed 18-storey buidling will be in forever darkness during daytime (approximately 8am - 1pm everyday) - This is not to mention the road behind this 18-storey building (e.g. the Horatio Street etc.) would be in a complete dark hole. - The number of PV panels on the roof of 'tower building' will defintely not be enough to power up anything substantial in the building. (per document MQ-WAB-01-RF-DR-A-01025) - If the building is shorter, the capacity of the solar power generation will not be affected, and rather it can cover a larger portion of electricity need of this building. Overlooking or loss of privacy: - The top floors of the proposed 18-storey building will be overlooking almost all of the flats in the Malings, which lead to loss of privacy for the Malings residents. Means of access, parking, servicing, traffic generation, highway safety: - Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. After the Q3 bus stop being cancelled in front of the Cycle Hub, there is no plan whatsoever from the Council to reinstitute this station. - Access to the bus stop outside top floor of the Toffee Factory is severely restricted, with these reasons: (1) Toffee Factory is commercial building which does not allow you to use their escalator; (2) there are several flights of stairs for you to climb to get to that bus stop; (3) this particular bus stop is so small next to a main road, you would not want to stand there to wait for the bus. - Frequency of Q3 needs to be largely increased to enhance the incentive to local and incoming residents to make use of buses. - Access to the two nearest metro stations (i.e. Byker or Gateshead Exchange) both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. Effect on listed buildings, conservation areas and archaeology - The 18-storey buidling is overshadowing the Toffee Factory (which seems to be a listed building). It just should not be that much taller than the chimey of the Toffee Factory. - This proposed building is even taller than the statue on top of Horatio Street. This does not make sense. Crime prevention and community safety: - As mentioned above, the open balconies on the top floors of the proposed 18-storey building impose a significant risks to community safety. | 22/01/2022 | Object |
| I have no problem with the design or look of the tower but NOT in the proposed location. It will totally spoil the line of buildings in that area & is totally inappropriate in that location. | 22/01/2022 | Object |
| The size of the malmo quay development is not appropriate for the location and will dramatically affect the landscape in a negative way. The development is much too high compared to the surrounding area and would be an eyesore to the surrounding area. The design is inappropriate for the location. In addition, there are many vacant domestic properties in the quayside area which are proving difficult to sell. An abundance of additional properties is not beneficial to the local area. There is a distinct lack of public transport provision to this site. A problem which will further exacerbate the number of cars withing this area, which the current plans do not account for. Additional vehicles in this area will put further pressure on the parking infrastructure in the area. | 22/01/2022 | Object |
| Having lived on or around the quayside since I was 18, this planned construction will completely alter and diminish the atmosphere and skyline. The quayside does not need a series of flats, there are plenty of spaces avaialble not on the quayside for develoments. This proposed building will be a blight on the quayside, blocking light and existing views that woudl be detrimental to Newcastle and tourism. | 22/01/2022 | Object |
| This is a grotesque design and offers nothing to a very over-heated housing market. | 22/01/2022 | Object |
| An 18 story tower bock is not in keeping with the surrounding new & old properties. There is no structure of a similar height on the north bank of the Tyne. Additionally the design is not in keeping with existing residential properties facing the river. In a nut shell it is a very unattractive structure driven by corporate greed to maximise as much residential space with no regard to the history and future ambiance of the surrounding area. I herewith object to this planning app | 22/01/2022 | Object |
| This will ruin the quayside. There is no reason for there to be such a monstrous and obtrusive eyesore. It needs to be significantly fewer floors to be in keeping with the existing features. There is no way this should be allowed. Don’t let them ruin the space and obstruct the views of the buildings behind. | 22/01/2022 | Object |
| This development would quite simply be yet another insult to the area. This building would be nothing more than an eyesore, ruining one of the most interesting, charming areas in Newcastle. It doesn't fit in with the surrounding architecture at all, instead choosing to stand out like a sore thumb. Unfortunately, the negative effects of this building would be far more pronounced than the building itself. The car park proposed would not fit enough cars for the building. How do you see this affecting the area? Cars will spill out and clutter up the small streets. Im sure these developments will continue to impact the culture of the area as well. Ouseburn is a cultural haven to me and many others. It's somewhere overflowing with music and art, and these residential buildings severely impact that. Live music is now an issue at Tyne Bar, due to developments. Tower Cafe's original Ouseburn location is now closed, due to developments. This is a special part of Newcastle, culture is more important than the private gain of developers. | 22/01/2022 | Object |
| This development just doesn't fit with the general look and feel of the Ouseburn and its surroundings. In context, it appears to be totally misplaced. | 22/01/2022 | Object |
| This area is key for the Ouseburn - cycle hub is a significant and well known landmark at the end of the quayside. It is a checkpoint on many well used bike rides and has a prosperous future on the quayside. That aside, adding more flats will only further negatively affect local businesses. The Tyne bar has already had restraints put on it, that have majorly affected its ability to put on live music and events. Continuing to build residential blocks in the area will only crush this even more. It crushes the culture, vibrancy and atmosphere of the place for the sake of profit. The Ouseburn is a highly treasured area of Newcastle, and to implement this building plan will be catastrophic for the area. Ontop of that, the free trade Inn, which has been a standing and beautiful pub for decades, has an iconic view over the quayside which attracts customers. To obstruct this view is ignorant and blindly inconsiderate to the local business environment. I, and many others, strongly urge this plan to be cancelled. | 22/01/2022 | Object |
| The planned development is abhorrent and is not in keeping with the historic nature of the Newcastle Quayside & Ousburn areas. The scale of the development would dominate the skyline, and is far inappropriate for the otherwise low lying area. | 23/01/2022 | Object |
| The proposed development, particularly the high rise element, is unsuited to the character of the surrounding area and would detrimentally affect the aesthetic of the Ouseburn and associated bars and arts organisations. An 18 storey building would be out of place in the proposed area, where most building are 3 or 4 stories at maximum, and would ruin both the views and soulful atmosphere that make the existing Ouseburn area so appealing. | 23/01/2022 | Object |
| I have a number of objections to this development. Nameley, The size and awful appearance of the development alongside the sheer density of the proposed development. In address, I think that thia development will massively impact Daylight, sunlight and will likely cause overshadowing of neighbouring buildings. Thanks, Alan | 23/01/2022 | Object |
| Stop views from other buildings and Will be an eyesore | 23/01/2022 | Object |
| Not only would this be an absolute eye sore. It would ruin the business around the local area for the views and the work needed to build these hideous monstrosities. 18 stories tall would mean I could see this building from my work premises in NE2 and I can’t see the quayside from here. Tourists come to the north east for the breath taking views, pubs and food. Building this heap of rubbish would massively ruin the trade to the area for live music and events as other accommodations built recently have also threatened this but luckily the council and businesses have worked together to succeed. To build this would ruin the local businesses and have a horrific effect on those surrounding the area. I cannot object to this more strongly if I tried as it will ruin the quayside and ouseburn if this is to go ahead. There is plenty of land available elsewhere for multi storey buildings and this land should be used for businesses with small buildings or a market not accommodation. | 23/01/2022 | Object |
| I am absolutely shocked that this is being proposed on the quayside. The beautiful city of Newcastle will be effectively ruined by an eye site of new flats. This building does not fit the style of the current quayside architecture and instead ruins the wonderful views that the quayside has to offer. This is absolutely appalling from the council and I will be embarrassed if this went ahead. | 23/01/2022 | Object |
| A tower of that size ruins the skyline of the entire river front, on both sides of the river. It blocks views of the river and iconic bridges from many angles. Everything else built along there has been done sympathetically to the existing skyline, shoreline, local residents and visitors to the area. This building would undo and ruin all of that. | 23/01/2022 | Object |
| Object | 23/01/2022 | Object |
| This project does not represent it's surrounding, not only does it block one of Newcastle's greatest and historical views it also looks boring and hidious compared to the size and style of everything around it, it sticks out like a sore thumb and looks little better than the horrid brutalist architecture we've been trying to get away from for years! | 23/01/2022 | Object |
| I think the concept of building an 18 story building is just selfish in so many ways to the local area, The space they want to to build on should be used I fully support that, but when planners planned this they will have known that building something this big will effect the skyline of the Ouseburn and most importantly and view from the fairtrade pub which many come from all over to enjoy. | 23/01/2022 | Object |
| Looks awful, will ruin the view of the river/quayside and cut off the Ouse burn from the views and quayside | 23/01/2022 | Object |
| I strongly reject the plans for this development on the Newcastle Quayside. As is usual, the plans come from a corporation who have no grasp nor care for the area in which they're planning to repurpose for their own means. They have no respect for the individuals who live in the area nor those who enjoy the local businesses there. Beyond being (in my opinion) an absolute eyesore that doesn't fit in -- even slightly -- with pre-existing look, and indeed the character of, the Quayside which it will be quite heartlessly inserted into, there are issues I would emphatically raise beyond this: Struggles already exist with parking both for residents and visitors; this project would only exacerbate this issue as well with more general access to the area. The building -- which would be humongous and stick out like a sore thumb -- would only serve to block out light on the banks it lies adjacent to; spoiling one of the best views in Newcastle for all of those who are patrons of, or resident to the area. Furthermore, it would only favour the elite few; those who do not care for the area, and who enjoy it from their penthouses as they sneer at those who they have stolen the light - and view - from. It would be an absolute tragedy if this goes ahead, and will serve only to negatively impact the Quayside in the future for aforementioned reasons: Newcastle is a fantastic city, and doesn't need these eyesores to improve, Who exactly is this for? Please do not allow this to happen. Best, James Murray | 23/01/2022 | Object |
| I feel this will have an impact on the environment with increased traffic and pollution. It will have a big impact on the historic area and the avaibility for leisure activities such as walking. The ouseburn is becoming saturated with flats and a number are not sold. It is overpopulation. The proposal will have an impact on the whole area and spoil the area which may impact on businesses. There is no requirement for more flats the style of building is not in keeping with the area. I can not see when reading the proposal why it is required it appears more of a business interest rather than for the local people. It is control and will stop the public using the ouseburn which is a public space and is important for health. It will be spoilt . | 23/01/2022 | Object |
| The size layout and density of the proposed development as well as loss of privacy. | 23/01/2022 | Object |
| The size layout and density of the proposed development as well as loss of privacy. | 23/01/2022 | Object |
| Hideous monstrosity, spoiling the views, the cycle hub is an important facility for the health & wellbeing of the local community | 23/01/2022 | Object |
| I am writing to object to the proposed development of Malmo Quay (2021/2404/01/EIA) as I firmly believe the proposed scheme not only risks permanently damaging an area of great significance to the City of Newcastle, but also falls short of the standards required under the applicable planning policies and guidance. First, the Ouseburn Valley makes an absolutely vital contribution to the character, identity, and values of the city that belies its size. I have lived in a number of cities around the world while working in the property development sector, and my experience has emphasised the importance of protecting and preserving neighbourhoods that are unique in their history, built environment and the communities that live and work in these areas. Cities with distinct and vibrant neighbourhoods that celebrate and protect their heritage are always the most engaging, inspiring and have the most potential for nurturing a sense of belonging and community – which must be one of the main aims for anyone involved in urban planning. The Ouseburn Valley currently exemplifies this, with a thriving creative community and a built environment that showcases the area’s industrial heritage while providing housing and space for those that live and work in the area. It is a truly fascinating part of the city loved by residents and visitors alike. However, this current situation must not be taken for granted. The proposed scale and massing of the development at Malmo Quay is simply too great – an 18 storey tower in this location will dominate the townscape, permanently changing the character and identity of the Quayside and Ouseburn areas. As the verified views demonstrate, the tower will become the most prominent feature of the area from several key views around the city. Views from the Quayside and the Millennium Bridge of the Glasshouse Bridge, the Tyne Bar, and the Free Trade Inn, will be lost forever. The existing urban grain around the site consists of predominantly 3-5 storey buildings, falling away to the south and the level of the Tyne. In this context – especially next to the river – the 18 storey tower component of the development is too aggressive, too imposing. No other building in the vicinity comes close to this proposed scale and massing. There is no doubt that the 18 storey tower will become the new defining feature of this part of the city. Is this really the landmark that the Ouseburn Valley must be known for, recognised for, and defined by? Vast amounts of time and money are spent on placemaking consultants by councils and developers to try and create identities for neighbourhoods, yet the proposed 18 storey tower will cause great and irreversible damage to the identity and character of an established neighbourhood, undoing much of the hard work already undertaken in the sensitive regeneration of the Ouseburn Valley. I’m concerned that with the previous approval of the Whey Aye wheel, and now this proposal, planners and developers in Newcastle are forgetting that the best way to make the city an attractive destination is to make it an attractive place to live, by creating and nurturing quality and unique neighbourhoods – not by throwing up gimmicks and new “landmark” towers that will be forgotten in the years to come. Second, the proposed development does not meet the standards required under the applicable planning policies and guidance. Under DM20, developments are required to demonstrate “a positive response to topography, natural and built landscapes”. Similarly, Q01 requires developments to respect “the scale, plot sizes, topography and historic grain of the area”. I fail to see how an 18 storey tower in this location complies with either of these policies, when the existing built environment surrounding the site consists mostly of 3-5 storey buildings? From almost all of the verified views, the tower even rises above the horizon to the north and east of the site, failing to respect the topography of the surrounding area as well. I note the Planning Statement references the Tall Buildings SPD in support of the proposed 18 storey tower. Under Criterion 2 of the SPD, “Tall buildings should be sited in areas of the city that have minimal visual impact on sensitive historic environments. Retaining and enhancing key strategic views through the careful siting of tall buildings is a key objective”. It is apparent to anyone looking at the verified views that the impact of the proposed 18 storey tower on the Ouseburn Valley can hardly be classified as “minimal”. Similarly, by obscuring views of the Glasshouse Bridge, Tyne Bar, and the Free Trade Inn from the Quayside and the Millennium Bridge (not to mention the views looking west from these locations), the proposal does not “retain and enhance” these key views. Under Criterion 3 of the SPD, tall buildings should not “visually impinge on the setting of/or important views of listed buildings or conservation areas”. Again, it cannot be argued that the proposed tower does not visually impinge on the Lower Ouseburn Valley conservation area when it is at least 10 storeys higher than any existing building to the north of the site. The Planning Statement also references the Design Guidance for Landmarks and Gateways in Newcastle’s Urban Core document in support of the proposed 18 storey tower. This document requires that landmark buildings and structures “enhance the skyline, streetscape and important views”, “respect the positive elements of their context, the city’s topography and landscape”, and “conserve or enhance the significance of heritage assets and their setting and views”. On all three tests, the proposed 18 storey tower fails badly – it is not architecturally significant enough to enhance the skyline as a unique landmark building, nor does it respect or conserve the site’s context and surrounding heritage assets for the reasons mentioned above. It is simply inaccurate for the Planning Statement to claim “the Proposed Development includes a tall building which will complement the existing cityscape”, when the existing cityscape is predominantly 3-5 storey buildings. While the Design Guidance for Landmarks and Gateways in Newcastle’s Urban Core document identifies the site as an “Area in Need of Enhancement”, this is not a licence for extreme scale and massing in this location – medium density housing like the 3 storey townhouses contained within this proposal are far more appropriate and generally comply with the above planning policies and planning guidance. In summary, this proposal must not be approved due to the irreversible harm it will cause to the character and identity one of Newcastle’s most unique and valuable neighbourhoods, and the failure of the 18 storey tower element to comply with the applicable planning policies and planning guidance. | 23/01/2022 | Object |
| I think this development would be catastrophic for the local community. Gentrification usually leads to negative impacts such as forced displacement, a fostering of discriminatory behavior by people in power, and a focus on spaces that exclude low-income individuals and other minoritised groups. | 23/01/2022 | Object |
| Height/scale/massing of the tower block not in keeping with the area. Appears overbearing and out of scale with the surrounding buildings. Apparent removal of spillers wharf free car parking (in conjunction with the Whey Aye development) - a popular way to access the Ouseburn valley, Quayside & c2c cycle path. | 23/01/2022 | Object |
| I object as I deem this hugely unfair on the Cyclehub business and nearby residentials. The city seems to be losing it's magic and replacing good spots/businesses with apartments and offices everywhere. It's an eyesore and real shame. Everyone I've spoke to does not want this to go ahead. | 23/01/2022 | Object |
| It will absolutely spoil the beautiful quayside view that many locals love. It will be directly in front of my view from my apartment and become an eye sore that I will have to look at on a daily basis. I live In Ouseburn wharf and would be very disappointed if this goes ahead. | 24/01/2022 | Object |
| The views of the Tyne are iconic in the ouseburne valley and a significant factor for what drives visitors to the area. Not only will the apartment ruin these views by blocking the Tyne from some of the most popular spots in Newcastle, but will impact the long standing businesses that have used the natural views of the area. The apartment will ruin what is a charming about the area and replace it with monotonous modern architecture. | 24/01/2022 | Object |
| Dreadful idea, please do not do this. It will ruin the area. Dreadful | 24/01/2022 | Object |
| The 18 storey tower block, will look out of place in the Ouseburn as well as overcrowding it. As a resident of Ouseburn Ward I’m utterly appalled by these plans, the neighbouring Mailings were built with respect to the surrounding skyline and occupants of the surrounding establishments, but this tower block will look completely out of place. It feels like Newcastle City Council sadly do not care about the existing residents or heritage of the area, or what makes it special. | 24/01/2022 | Object |
| The tower block part of the development is not in keeping with the area. It sets a terrible precedent and devalues the local area and heritage. | 24/01/2022 | Object |
| i would like to strongly object to the proposal for this building on the grounds that it is far, far too tall for the area in which it is intended and is not in any way in keeping with the aesthetic and feel of the Ouseburn, Quayside or anywhere else it's poor design will be visible from. In addition to being monumental, it is also monumentally ugly - poorly designed with no consideration for existing architecture of the area - and is intended to house many more people than it can provide parking for - an issue that is already a concern for the area and is set to worsen as other new developments take shape and public transport options for the area look unlikely to be expanded or improved. i have lived in the East of newcastle for over 20 years and have witnessed the extraordinary transformation of both the Quayside and Ouseburn - areas that now regularly appear in "best of" lists for both living and tourism - please consider these proposals through the eyes of everyone who lives, works and enjoys visiting here, see them for ugly, inappropriate and damaging suggestions they are, and refuse them. Newcastle will thank you in both the short and long term. [Areas of objection: size, location, quality of deign, accessibility.] | 24/01/2022 | Object |
| The proposed buildings, in particular the tower block, is completely out of keeping with the rest of the quayside. Newcastle Quayside is iconic. It is known the world over. This would be an absolute eye sore and spoil the whole vibe of the quayside and surrounding areas (e.g. Ouseburn). The quayside is vibrant, Ouseburn is thriving. I beg of you to not ruin a great thing. This building is completely unnecessary. The aesthetic is all wrong. There's no easy access to public transport for potential tenants and not enough parking spaces as there is. It's badly thought through in pretty much every regard. The colour of it is awful. We have the Baltic, the Sage, the bridges of the Tyne. All beautiful in their own right. This is UGLY. Please do not allow this to go ahead. | 24/01/2022 | Object |
| It is not in keeping with the theme of the area in terms of the height and the colour. The tower particularly is an isaw and does not look right. There is not enough parking spaces for the proposed amount of people to be living there | 24/01/2022 | Object |
| I would like to make an objection to the proposed Malmo Quay development. The Quayside is distinctive for many things - its unique culture, its vibrancy and its architecture, to name three. The tower block proposed here, along with the wider scheme proposal, will meaningfully detract from all of these, and will materially damage the Quayside. The tower block proposed is of a totally inappropriate design for its location. It is completely out of character with the rest of the Quayside, it has exceptionally limited architectural merit in its design, and appears to serve no more than creating an opportunity for developers to profit from the special location by adding no incremental value to the area, and indeed detracting from it. Aside of this, the proposed area is entirely unsuitable to have such a large volume of residential properties imposed upon it. There is limited parking within the plan or already within the area, and the access roads, both direct and adjoining, are unsuitable to cope with the signigficant volume of additional traffic that this development will generate. Related to this, there is limited public transport to the area, and the proposal does not adequately explain how this will be remedies. In short, this proposal must be turned down as it risks bringing serious damage to one of our city's most characterful and important areas, | 24/01/2022 | Object |
| - The Scale and massing of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for it's location. - Quality of design; Quite obvious, but there's very little merit in a beige 18 story tower block in such a prominent position. Does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. - Parking; The submitted plans for Malmo Quay appear to only show 18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block, woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. *It's important to remember that the proposed 73 Parking Spaces on Spillers Wharf are not actually part of this application. Even then, at best they won't be available for at least 3-4 years, will also have to service the 76 apartments potentially being build there and there's a fully functioning carpark being removed to create that site * Accessibility - Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. | 24/01/2022 | Object |
| This area of Newcastle is becoming overdeveloped, the proposed building is an eyesore and is not in keeping with the rest of the area. | 24/01/2022 | Object |
| When living in Australia my partner and I always talked about how the first thing we'd do when we got back to Newcastle was go to the free trade and enjoy the view looking over the Tyne. I enjoy going there with my dad and now I live back in Newcastle have taken my children to enjoy the view of the bridges across the Tyne. It gives a sense of Newcastle to me, I've sat there with my grandfather as he talked me through what it used to look like and enjoyed explaining this to my son. I'm sure many people feel strongly about enjoying the view and look forward to doing so again so I strongly feel it should be maintained for the many, not obstructed for the benefit of the few. | 24/01/2022 | Object |
| I strongly object to this application for a number of reasons detailed below. 1. The amount of residential parking in the Lower Ouseburn valley is already inadequate. Looking at the plans I cant see where all the additional vehicles will park. You are also planning on removing spillers car park this is going to lead to massive problems, congestion, pollution and noise. 2. Public transport - lack of a feasible transport plan for the lower Ouseburn valley. No consideration has been given for the provision of public transport to support the additional housing. This will further force people to use cars thus increasing pollution and congestion. 3. Light survey. I can't find any evidence that consideration was given for the shadow cast from the tower block on my property at the adjoining Mailings development at 8 Luxor Row NE6 1LG. 4. Architecture - The tower block would not be in keeping with the surrounding area. It will spoil the city skyline and risks becoming an eyesore. 5. Privacy - I am concerned about the lack of privacy. I believe the tower block will directly overlook my terrace. (8 Luxor Row) 6. Noise - Has consideration been made on how the proposed 'Why Aye' wheel will affect the new development. 7. Lower Ouseburn Valley conservation area character appraisal (2004). the proposed development is unsympathetic to historic and industrial history. This detracts, not enhances the special character of the area. 8. View. The Newcastle Quayside scenery is iconic. Building a large tower block will spoil this view for future generations. | 24/01/2022 | Object |
| This development would be a disaster for the vibrant alternative creative, music and nightlife scene which thrives in the Ouseburn Valley. The Tyne Bar and The Free Trade Inn represent fundemental elements of the heritage of Ouseburn and indeed Newcastle. Part of what makes these venues famous cultural icons is their breathtaking views of our river and city. This would be entirely eliminated by the above proposal, in addition to the stiffling of trade through strickter noise control. While Newcastle Council has a proud history of archetectural vandalism, often prioritising profit over local community and modernity over rich history, this develpement would have even T Dan Smith birling in his grave. | 24/01/2022 | Object |
| Many aspects of this development are minimally disruptive and likely appropriate for the area. The smaller dwellings, commercial buildings and city infrastructure updates are reasonable. The 18 storey tower does not fall in this category. Instead, it is maximally disruptive. Its proximity to current residences combined with its height are likely to impact privacy and comfort of current residents. The area does not have adequate parking for a building this size. Structures with similar parking provisions (i.e. not enough) can get away with this because they are well-connected to public transport (e.g. Turnbull Building, NE1). The situation here is not the same; no bus routes are present and the nearest metro stations are Byker and Manors. Even if the parking issue can be solved, this will create a situation where dozens more cars are present along a cycle route, endangering cyclists at a time when the city is purported to be encouraging increased cycling. Perhaps most importantly, it is simply too big. It has not been designed with respect to its surroundings. It is far taller than the other Quayside buildings and will dominate the area in a way that does not respect the existing architecture. There are examples of large residential projects nearby that have integrated into the landscape/skyline - this simply invades it. | 24/01/2022 | Object |
| The large building is not in keeping with the building around it and completely dominates the surrounding area. The area does need development but this is completely unsuitable. | 24/01/2022 | Object |
| As an architect I strongly object to this proposal. It would be incredibly damaging to the atmospheric quality of the ouseburn area. It would negatively impact local businesses and also block much loved views. The development quality itself is also incredibly poor. But the sheer height of the tower is ludicrous and is not in keeping with the context of its surroundings whatsoever. | 24/01/2022 | Object |
| This development is too large for this area of the city, too many dwellings for a culturally rich area. The tower is not in keeping with the area and is far too tall for that area spoiling the ambience of the burn. This area has a lot of pedestrians and cyxlists and the size of the development will unnecessarily increase traffic on the road. There are a number of cultural venues in the area and I fear residents of this development will subsequently take issue with open air concerts and large numbers of people outdoors particularly in the summer. | 24/01/2022 | Object |
| This development is totally wrong for this location. All the existing buildings are low rise ( 4 storeys) and have a good fit with the local environment. Building an 18 storey building together with additional houses and flats, totalling 77 units, without commitment to providing at least one parking space per unit is crazy. Whilst I understand the Councils desire to exclude cars, it is not feasible in this location as public transport is so poor. The nearest metro is over 1KM away. How will the tenants get their weekly shops with no car? agh yes delivery drivers, in vans which pollute far more than cars, thus more pollution is the area. Any development in this area should be limited to 4 storeys, the same as existing buildings and provide at least one parking space per unit. The current proposal will result in a blot on the landscape, wasting all the good work that have been developed over the last 30 years. The many visitors to the area will see this monstrosity, including from the world acclaimed Tyne and Millennium bridges together with the view from the Baltic The developers are clearly putting profits over sustainable, environmentally friendly and architecturally sympathetic buildings that would not give them the huge returns they want. The inclusion of an outline application as a means to sweeten the deal, is a clear attempt to "buy" the approval of the application. | 24/01/2022 | Object |
| I think the building of this development is an awful idea, one that will do more to harm the Ouseburn and it's surrounding area than improve it. Firstly, the Scale and massing of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for it's location. Furthermore, the submitted plans for Malmo Quay appear to only show 18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block, woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. | 24/01/2022 | Object |
| I object to this proposal as I have a number of concerns regarding it's suitability and the assumptions made in it's design. Transport - the assumption that the bus stops are 5 minutes away doesn't account for the level differences between Quayside and Walker Road - 15 minute frequency is not a great service in that location and links to further transport networks are slow meaning it's more likely that cars will be used/ stored in the area - presence of additional parking and access movements will make the NCR72 Coast to Coast and commuter link less attractive/ more dangerous - Transport statement asserts that there will be less car usage than the 24% calculated but gives little evidence of this. - Central Station and the City Centre are a 25 minute walk with a significant climb from the quayside which will make them less attractive. - The adjacent development has cars parked in front of garages blocking the footway on a regular basis. This gives a truer picture of the demands for parking in similar units. Appearance and visual impact - the townhouses are not in proportion with the dwellings to the west and look out of place - the tower block is out of proportion with the surrounding site and this is clear in all of the visuals and building height assessments. - the impact on light on the public areas around here will be detrimental to the existing vibrant scene. The daylight assessment indicates open areas will still have a minimum of 2hrs sunlight on 21st March it doesn't indicate at what time of day this would be. Given the bars to the east of this building it's likely that the tower block would impact evening sunlight as the sun sets in the west, especially during the height of summer. - the sheer scale of this building and visual impact across the city with little value other than to the developer is out of keeping with the surrounding character. | 24/01/2022 | Object |
| I strongly object to the application on the grounds that it will destroy the iconic view of the river and surroundings of the most popular pub in Newcastle. It is a historical and culturally significant area that needs preservation not gentrification. | 24/01/2022 | Object |
| My objections listed are copied from a local community page and fully represent my objection to the misuse of this land. ✔️The size, appearance, layout and density of the proposed development ✔️Daylight, sunlight and overshadowing ✔️Overlooking or loss of privacy ✔️Means of access, parking, servicing, traffic generation, highway safety ✔️Impact on landscape and ecological habitats ✔️Effect on listed buildings, conservation areas and archaeology ✔️Noise and disturbance ✔️Air quality and odours ✔️Contamination ✔️Flood risk ✔️Renewable energy, sustainability of proposed development ✔️Crime prevention and community safety | 24/01/2022 | Object |
| I object to application 2021/2404/01/EIA as this development is massively out of proportion with the surrounding area. The scale of the 18 storey building is totally out of keeping with the surrounding buildings, and it would dominate the Ouseburn conservation area and detract from the local heritage. It would be directly competing with local heritage sites, the negative impact on the area's character would be huge. This development would be of no benefit to the locality, it would destroy the skyline and clog up the roads with parking as there are insufficient spaces for the apartment block. There is also very little public transport in place for this area, so to increase the population density here would increase reliance on cars and would directly detract from Newcastle council's commitment to reducing traffic and air pollution in the city. | 24/01/2022 | Object |
| The Scale and massing of a tower block on malmo key this is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for it's location. The design of the tower block is not fitting for the prominent location on the quayside and heriage of the ouseburn area. It Does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. The submitted plans for Malmo Quay appear to only show 18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block, woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. 1 Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. | 24/01/2022 | Object |
| I have huge objections over this proposed project. I am concerned not only of the physical environmental impact this will have on the local area, ruining the views and scenery of the beautiful quayside, I am also concerned it will be detrimental to the local long established businesses who depend on the quayside views for a large amount of their custom. I am also hugely concerned about how the number of homes does not match with the proposed parking provision. Parking in the ouseburn area is already challenging enough, it doesn’t need to get worse. This will also attract more car crime to the area as cars are left in less secure places just so people can park near to home/work/their local pub. I feel this project has little to no consideration for the long established residences and businesses around it, and it is an unwelcome eyesore to the area. | 24/01/2022 | Object |
| The Scale of this tower block this size, 18 stories is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area, will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East Endb and will look completely out of place amongst the remnants of an industrial age. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for it's location. | 24/01/2022 | Object |
| The Scale and massing of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for it's location. The submitted plans for Malmo Quay appear to only show 18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block, woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. | 24/01/2022 | Object |
| Good Afternoon, I would like to submit my objection to the proposed planning application (2021/2404/01/EIA) for the residential block of 18 storeys at Malmo Quay. My objection is based on the following reasons: Strategic Objective 09 - Ensure the development and use of land protects, sustains and enhances the quality of the natural, built and historic environment, making the Urban Core a high quality exemplar for Gateshead and Newcastle, and ensuring our communities are attractive, safe and sustainable. 1) The Newcastle City Council strategic objective S09 outlined above look to ensure that development and use of land protects the built and historic environment in Newcastle. The proposed tower block of 18 storeys is in does not comply with the objective as it is not in character with the surrounding area, where all buildings are at a similar level. The Free Trade Inn and Tyne Bar are historic and much loved pubs in the Ouseburn area and they tower block would be completely out of character and change the whole dynamic of the area for the worse. Policy CS2 – Spatial Strategy for the urban core 2) Policy CS2 looks to secure ‘high-quality design that promotes local distinctiveness and sustains and enhances the historic environment. The proposed development and tower block is not in keeping with the local area, and does not enhance or sustain the historic environment. The local amenities within the area would be towered over by a block of flats, losing sunlight, an increase in glare and the probably increase of anti-social behaviour. Policy CS15 Place-Making 3) Policy CS15 Place-Making states that “Development being required to: iv. Respect and enhance significant views and the setting of heritage assets. I would argue that the view from the Free trade inn down the River Tyne is a significant view within Newcastle. The view is constantly voted as one of the 20 best beer garden views, being published in Newspapers such as the guardian (10 of the best UK beer gardens: readers’ travel tips | United Kingdom holidays | The Guardian), likely bringing tourism to the city. 3) The Newcastle Councils SuDS guidance and Local Plan states that “Prioritise the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS), given the multifunctional benefits to water quality, green space and habitat enhancement”. The proposed development / Drainage strategy is to provide drainage within an underground geo-cellular storage crate. Figure 6 of the FRA provides insufficient evidence on why green / blue roofs and other more sustainable drainage systems can’t be used. Policy CS17 Flood Risk and Water Management 4) The Environmental Statement – Volume III – Appendix 9.1: Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy has outlined that the proposed development area is below the 1 in 200 (plus climate change) or greater annual probability of flooding. The developers have proposed to increase the FFL to a minimum of 5.54 mAOD. This is likely to direct flood risk away from the proposed development area to the surrounding areas. This is against the key emphasis of the National Planning Policy Framework which outlines (164 (b). the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall. The flood data used by the applicant to assess flood risk is also from 2019. This is over two year old and therefore may not be the most recent. No evidence has been provided by the applicant that this is the most recent data. 5) The FRA states that the site is at flood risk from tidal sources, with area of the proposed development being below the 1 in 200 (plus climate change) or greater annual probability of flooding. The Local plan outlined that “avoid and manage flood risk to people and property by: i. Locating new development in areas with the lowest risk where appropriate by applying the Sequential Test”. No sequential or Exception test has been applied to the development and on the basis of being at flood risk is not sequentially appropriate. On the basis of the 5 points outlined above, the proposed development does not comply with Newcastle City Council’s Local Planning Policy or the National Planning Policy Framework. I therefore object and the proposed development should be refused. Thanks, Angus Kerry | 25/01/2022 | |
| We wholeheartedly object the development of Malmo Quay. e The out of place tower block is a complete eyesore, clearly ruining the landscape which is steeped in the rich history of Ouseburn, Quayside and the Newcastle and Gateshead skylines. The building proposal is completley inappropriate for the location and does not fit in with the surrounding area, mimicking the awful infamous Get Carter building in the city centre. What need is there for an 18 story tower block completley out of place, isolated, towering over the former industrial area? This development in no way adds to the heritage nor culture of the area, but in reality further gentrifies it to the detrement of the local residents and businesses who make Ouseburn and the Quayside the wonderful place it is. Who is this development serving? The local residents or the developers and city officials? In terms of parking, the submitted plans appear only to show 18 parking spaces for 62 apartments. This is completley inadequate and will no doubt congest the surrounding areas parking capacities. Additionally, all construction traffic will no doubt clog up an already heavily congested area. To reiterate, we wholeheartedly object to this development, or further developments on this site. Regards, Angus Mack and Hannah Phillips | 25/01/2022 | Object |
| I am a resident of Heaton. I walk to the quayside on a regular basis for exercise and wellbeing. The proposed tower would be an eyesore. It would not fit in with the area. It would be taller than all the existing buildings and not compliment the area. It would permanently soil a beautiful area of Newcastle. The views of the river would be completely compromised. | 25/01/2022 | Object |
| Will detract significantly from the amenity of the local area. The quayside is a sloping low level area with world renowned historic features. This proposal will desecrate the ability to appreciate the cultural setting of key historic buildings that form a legacy to a regional industrial and commercial powerhouse,that has evolved overvthousands ofcyears. | 25/01/2022 | Object |
| I am writing to object to the construction of the 18-storey tower at Malmo Quay. I have highlighted below a number of reasons for my objection: -Scale of the tower -Design -Accessibility In terms of scale, the tower is completely disproportionate to the rest of Ouseburn and the whole of the Quayside. The building will be the biggest on the waterfront by a considerable margin - completely inappropriate for its location. A tower of this size should not be so close to the waterfront, and I understand that Ouseburn has been on a post-industrial revitalisation in recent years but the scale of this tower shadows this work and brings a completely ugly look to the area. That brings me onto the design. The quality of the design is inadequate for the area. Ouseburn as a whole has a slick, post-industrial feel and this disproportionately sized beige block completely goes against everything in the surrounding area. It does not fit in with the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. Finally, accessibility. Ouseburn already has very limited transportation links - the site currently has no adequate bus service passing it, meaning there will be increased pressure on parking. Along with this, access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. The other aspects of the site do not have my objection, just the 18-storey tower. Thank you for considering my representation. | 25/01/2022 | Object |
| Emma Clement Rear of 132 Heaton Park Road Heaton Newcastle upon Tyne NE6 5NR Tuesday 25th January 2022 Objection to application 2021/2404/01/EIA To whom it may concern, I am writing to you with consideration, as I would like to file an objection to the proposed development of Malmo Quay from PfP Igloo. I understand that this has been submitted as part of the hybrid application for the development of both Malmo and Spillers Quays, and at this time I would like to air my concerns regarding the height and appearance of the proposed tower block on the Malmo Quay. To illustrate my insight, I feel it necessary for you to know that I have lived in Ouseburn Ward since 2015. I moved here when I graduated from University and I was 22. I came here thinking that a relatively cheap flat share near a city centre would suit me for a couple of years, but, as you can see from my address above, I have never left. I have found in Newcastle’s East End a wonderful place to live. The built environment in Newcastle is endlessly fascinating, with every single century there before you in big beautiful views and in tiny little nooks, whichever you prefer. I think that, as a Council, it is commendable that you have fostered this environment to create an enviable location for living, working, relaxing and growing – you have an incredible city in your hands. Whilst I have lived here, I have witnessed contemporary developments in Ouseburn, Byker and Heaton that have demonstrated an appreciation for their surroundings. I like the Mallings and Lower Steenberg’s Yard, both from PfP Igloo. I’m not an architect, but in my opinion they fit into their surroundings, echo the industrial past of the area, are creative, unique and interesting, and have bought vibrancy to our community. Now I may not be an architect, but I am a senior consultant in sustainable urban development. Which is to say, through my professional life I have a deep and sincere understanding of the multiple, complex challenges faced by urban areas and their governing authorities. To see a brown field site in such a central location left undeveloped for so long is emblematic of the constraints faced by yourselves as a Council. So, of course, I do not dispute that this development is necessary given the economic case: Investment is investment. Housing is housing. I keep telling myself that “I get it” and that I understand that there is a return on investment needed, which is why a proposed development of this size has reached this stage. However, having taken a closer look at the proposal, I believe that this development is not appropriate based on: • the size and appearance of the tower block, • and the visual impact of the building on the wider area. Size and appearance I have reviewed the Statement of Community Involvement from PfP Igloo. It highlights that specific conversations with four Councillors raised feedback on the need for the site to be considerate of the neighbourhood’s needs in limiting the height of building and preserving key views. In April 2021, all four of them effectively reflected my views in commenting that they were supportive of a housing development, but that one of 18 storeys tall would not be in keeping with its surroundings. In the same month, the Free Trade Inn emphasised that the views over and above Malmo Quay are a unique selling point for the pub. I won’t dwell on emotions here; the national acclaim of this pub and their admiral efforts to promote community in ordinary circumstances and during the pandemic speak for themselves. It is a very special place. It would be a deep shame for the this view to be lost, but it is especially a shame that it is potentially going to be lost to such a large, obtrusive building. I do not believe that PfP Igloo have gone far enough to reflect the concerns of these local councillors and immediate neighbours in the design of their development. I believe that it is too large, too obtrusive, and not aesthetically valuable. PfP Igloo state that this building is “slender” and that it holds the benefit of serving as a waymark for the Ouseburn. In an attempt to remain rational, I will not go so far as to call this an insult to our community, but I have been considering it! We have waymarks aplenty all across our wonderful city. I cannot see what would warrant an unprecedentedly huge, brown, uninspiring tower to mark out a quarter of the city that is prided on its creativity, culture and community. Visual impact In the Landscape and Visual Impact assessment for Malmo Quays, PfP Igloo have identified 17 Grade II listed and one Grade I listed buildings within 1km of the site. The views and prominence of these buildings will undoubtedly be impacted by the addition of an 18 storey tower in the East End, and the precedent that this sets for future developments. Regardless of this immediate context and specific views and specific buildings, I believe that considerable care and attention should be paid to the visual impact of any development within or near to Newcastle’s quayside. In July 2021, Liverpool’s waterfront had its status as a UNESCO world heritage site rescinded. Having been recognised for its architectural beauty and historic significance, the international body determined that new developments in the area had deteriorated this, despite the city being warned about the potential of this happening if its skyline were to be changed as early as 2012. I believe that this should serve as an example for Newcastle, a city which echoes Liverpool in architecture, geography and culture in many ways. When reconsidering the status of the heritage site, the UN agency described Liverpool’s new developments as having caused “irreversible loss” to the beauty and heritage of the waterfront. To damage the beauty of our treasured quayside with an inconsistent and aesthetically poor development on this scale would be a loss similarly recognised at an international scale. The current economic case does not, in my opinion, stack up against the long term losses to our heritage and to our reputation as a proud city of culture and community. I do believe that a more consistent, beautiful and considerate development would be of significant benefit to my local area and the whole city. I trust that the Council will acknowledge my concerns surrounding the PfP Igloo development and that a more appropriate solution is sought. Yours faithfully, Emma Clement MEng B.A. (Hons) Cantab | 25/01/2022 | Object |
| I would like to strongly object to this proposal. It should be obvious to anyone that the scheme is completely inappropriate for the location - out of scale, out of keeping with the unique history of the Ouseburn, and lacking in any architectural merit. It would literally be a blot on the landscape, dominating the Quayside. I live in the Malings, and would be completely overlooked by dozens of flats in the tower, impacting on my privacy and mental health. The tower would overshadow my house, and block my daylight for long periods of the day. The argument that the development requires that density of dwellings to be built in order to be viable is dumbfounding and circular: if it's not viable without densely packing in 62 apartments - 62!! - then for this reason alone the scheme should not go ahead. The parking problems in the area would be exacerbated further - at the public consultation meetings, the developers stated that they were aiming to "use the lack of parking facilities to encourage residents on to public transport"; two issues here: (a) what public transport? and (b) where is the evidence that this has ever worked? It's disingenuous to hide behind '73 car parking spaces' - as I understand it, these apply to Spillers Quay development and is therefore irrelevant to Malmo Quay. I can only imagine the impact on traffic, noise and pollution of this development, both during the build and thereafter, and none of it will be positive. Our community - including the local businesses - would be negatively impacted by the dirt, noise and traffic pollution during the build and by the sheer population density thereafter. I'm surprised that this application has gone as far as it has, given how obviously at odds it is with this unique, historic location. It would stand as a lasting testament to avarice, short-termism and greed. Please ensure that the proposal is rejected. | 25/01/2022 | Object |
| The Scale and massing of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for it's location. - Quality of design; There's very little merit in a beige 18 story tower block in such a prominent position. Does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. - Parking; The submitted plans for Malmo Quay appear to only show 18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block, woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. The proposed 73 Parking Spaces on Spillers Wharf are not actually part of this application. Even then, at best they won't be available for at least 3-4 years, will also have to service the 76 apartments potentially being build there and there's a fully functioning carpark being removed to create that site. Accessibility - Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. | 25/01/2022 | Object |
| The Free Trade Inn is a key part of Newcastle’s thriving craft beer scene. The pub has attracted critical acclaim for its view, which this development would completely ruin. In order to keep this important part of Newcastle’s culture and history, this development should not be built | 25/01/2022 | Object |
| I would like to object to the scheme as proposed. The low rise elements have the potential to be a pleasant and appropriate use of what is derelict land at a crucial 'intersection' site between 'Quayside' and 'Ouseburn' areas. However, the tower looks completely out of place, both in the context of the scheme itself and its wider setting. It will have significant impacts on views along the Tyne gorge in both directions ,both directly (it will impede the view of the valley from many vantage points) and indirectly (it will mar the overall aspect of the Tyne gorge from almost anywhere in the Quayside / Gateshead Quays, Ouseburn / Byker / areas. There is nothing of this scale or massing in the wider Ouseburn or East Quayside areas and the design of the building is completely out of keeping with the wider environment in which it sits. Granted, the Ouseburn / East Quayside areas contain a wide variety of building types but the newer buildings in the area have, almost without exception, been designed to augment the local environment. The scale and prominence of this development warrants a sympathetic and appropriate design and colour scheme, and the design could not be further than this. Why is it beige? There appear to be insufficient parking spaces within the Malmo Quay development - 18 for 62 apartments. This will put significant pressure on on-street parking in the Ouseburn area, especially at the weekend, and create hazardous conditions for families and cyclists using the Valley for leisure purposes. The related repurposing of the Ouseburn East car park at Spillers Wharf provides additional cause for concern. While we all share an aspiration that the transition to a carbon neutral / negative economy will result in decreased reliance on cars, we as a society are simply not there yet. The distance from this development to the nearest metro stations (or bus stops served by multiple services) mean that it is unlikely that 70% of its tenants are going to be non-car-owners. In conclusion, the architects could not have designed something that looks more like a 'sore thumb' (literally and figuratively) had they tried; I presume this was not part of the brief and would urge councillors and planning officers involved in this decision to consider the future shame and embarrassment that an approval would bring! | 25/01/2022 | Object |
| The desgin of the building including its height and appearence is totally out of character for the area . it is far too tall and will be a blott on the landscape . The River Tyne from Tynemouth to it's source is one of the worlds iconic rivers . Devleopment should be sympathetic to the area . This is a monstrosity not only that it is a purely selfish desgin which will ruin the view 0f the Tyne for 1000s of people for the benefit of a wealthy few.The Free Trade inn is an iconic veneue and the view from the beer garden will be obliterated . Likewise the Tyne bar will be cast into shadow . All the hard work that has been put into re devreloping the Ouseburn will be oblitertated by this proposed development . The develpoment should complement an area not destroy it . which is what Malmo Quay will do . The Council by granting planning permssion for so many tower blocks is fundamentally changing the character of Newcastle Upon Tyne and is doing so for the worse .this propsal cannot be allowed to go ahead | 25/01/2022 | Object |
| This would be an eyesore in an iconic area! Have you not put up enough charmfree high rise ugly buildings in our beautiful city? At least most of them have been out of the way How could you possibly consider putting up this monstrosity in such area? The Ouseburn is wonderful. It is out of place. You lost the Handyside. You are an rmba | 25/01/2022 | Object |
| No real concerns with the low level flats and apartments, noting a lack of car parking should be reflected with a high amount of secure push bike parking for residents, as well as sufficient public transport and car sharing nearby. In respect of the 18-storey tower, this would have an significant and detrimental overbearing effect onto nearby surrounding residential and commercial properties, in addition to a adverse degree of overshadowing onto nearby neighbouring properties. The proposal would bring about a loss of outlook due to its scale and location, although the proposal represents considered design, on balance, it would amounts to an incongruous feature within the landscape, not realting to the existing low to mid rise height of surrounding properties. The loss of an area that could be used as an urban park is significant, given the pressures of lockdown has afforded to residents of Newcastle in finding green open space. | 25/01/2022 | Object |
| This unsightly building does not fit with the rest of this historical cultural hub and will do significant damage to local businesses and the Ouseburn community. | 25/01/2022 | Object |
| Absolutely ludicrous idea. Ugly building and the tower itself will block the views of the Tyne from our historic pub the ‘Free Trade Inn’ as well as other housing in the local area. This simply cannot be allowed! | 25/01/2022 | Object |
| I am a local resident in Lower Ouseburn. Like most people locally I walk by the quayside a lot and treasure the space. This new building would be an eyesore which would devalue the unique quality of the area next to the river. The height of the planned building would be oppressive and spoil the open view for a large number of people to benefit a small number of investors. | 25/01/2022 | Object |
| The proposed development at Malmo and Spillers quay is grossly out of proportion and represents a significant loss of cultural and visual amenity to the locale. The proposed 18 storey tower is grossly out of place and is completely out of character to local developments. The right to light study prepared as part of the application states that there will be a clear loss of light amenity to adjacent properties as a result of the development. Whilst the development is not technically within the Ouseburn conservation area, a development of this size will be viewable from across Tyneside and the ouseburn; therefore a higher standard of development should not just be expected but demanded from the developers. The height of the tower is grossly out of place in comparison to existing properties in the Ouseburn conservation area and any development so close to the boundary should be expected to comply with the spirit and nature of the wider area. In addition to the grossly out of place height; the tower in question has been designed in place for a single fire escape staircase. In an 18-storey tower, this is wholely unacceptable and puts any future residents at risk should a fire break out and evacuation of the tower be required. This sort of lazy design belongs to the early 21st century and the design team should know better. The lessons from Grenfell have clearly not sunk in. Despite the desperate need for redevelopment of brownfield/disused land, this should not come at the expense of the wider local area just so the developers can make a quick buck and move on to their next scheme. | 25/01/2022 | Object |
| The size of the planned tower block is far too big and will ruin the surrounding environment, views and experience for anyone visiting the area. In fact, any new tower block at all would not be in keeping with everything good about the location, and would severely impact the current architectural landscape and dominate everything around it. Furthermore, the design itself is not in keeping with the current collection of historic and repurposed buildings, interspersed with a view tasteful more modern developments. In general, the design of the proposed building isn't very good at all, and wouldn't look good no matter where it was located. | 25/01/2022 | Object |
| I submit an objection to this development on the following material planning considerations: The size and unsightly appearance are very out of place with its surroundings, and the layout and density is over the top The large 'shreddies tower' part of the development would negatively impact its surroundings with regard to access to daylight / sunlight and bring an unwelcome overshadowing of areas Again the aforementioned tower overlooks surrounding areas to such a degree that there would be a profound loss of privacy The development would create a diminished means of access and parking, and in doing so would generate more traffic and potentially more highway safety issues as a result Loss of landscape and ecological habitats Noise and disturbance for surrounding neighbourhoods (particularly during construction) Increased congestion possible, leading to diminished air qulaity and increased pollution for the area | 26/01/2022 | Object |
| Hello, I'd like to express my support for this project. As we all now Newcastle and the region are growing and a such demand for housing is increasing. Making use of this land for dozens of new apartments and homes will help address this demand. A 2019 paper by Evan Mast shows that the construction of new market-rate (read 'luxury' or expensive) homes loosens demand in low and middle income areas as well as in the higher income areas where the housing is built. Additional housing developments are required for our city to continue to grow in both size and prosperity, they also attract more amenities like restaurants and bars which of course Ouseburn is becoming a centre for. Medium and high density projects like this also emit less carbon dioxide and are more energy efficient by a factor of 2-2.5 than the same number of detached properties (shown in a 2006 paper by Jonathan Norman, Heather L. MacLean, Christopher A. Kennedy). I have seen many objections to this project, mainly originating from local pubs who seem more interested in preserving a view than giving people a home. Mast 2019: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3426103 Norman 2006: https://ascelibrary.org/doi/full/10.1061/%28ASCE%290733-9488%282006%291… | 26/01/2022 | Support |
| The proposed 18 story tower is not in keeping with the quayside skyline. The current quayside has, rightly, acquired iconic status as an attraction to our city. We’re proud of it. This feature would ruin it. Aesthetics matter. For those of us who remember the old Eldon Square, we know once developers, for short-term profit, are allowed a free hand they can destroy something unique and replace it with something of nil long term value. | 26/01/2022 | Object |
| Having spent a lot of time in Ouseburn, I know for certain that this development is not in keeping with the feel of the area and will majorly disrupt the enjoyment that many people find in living in and coming to Ouseburn. The area has a natural viewpoint upon the river and southwards and this jarring development with spoil that completely. One of the many reasons that Ouseburn holds so much charm is its lack of high rise and oversized buildings. It's a peaceful haven, slightly away from the business and claustrophobia of the City Centre for those that enjoy a slightly more relaxed environment. This development is looking to do nothing but capitalise on this. However, if done in this way, instead of becoming part of the charm and atmosphere of the area, this development will only disrupt it and drag Ouseburn towards a more busy city centre-like feel and we will lose the uniqueness of Ouseburn. Please consider how much this decision will spoil what has been a wonderful area for such a long time, purely because it creates its own charm and its Ouseburn being like it is now and has been for a while that makes it so successful. A 'capitalisation' on the area will only reduce its charm and reduce its success; this development will completely destroy what its trying to become a part of. | 26/01/2022 | Object |
| I strongly object this proposal. A development of this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside. This 18 story monstrosity does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. The redevelopment of the Ouseburn into a cultural and vibrant neighbourhood has been a big success and is a huge asset to our city. The housing development than has been permitted over the last few years has already caused conflict with existing pubs and music venues. We can not allow profit hungry developers to further destroy this unique area of our city by the creation of this enormous, inappropriate and ugly tower block. | 26/01/2022 | Object |
| Whilst I appreciate the need to put the space at the mouth of the Ouse to use and agree that most of the housing would fit in well with the newer development in Ouseburn, I must object to the 18 storey tower block. The views and right to light are what helps make Ouseburn such a popular area, with the hospitality economy booming under normal circumstances and photographers flocking to capture the incredible sight up the river Tyne. To build such a substantial tower block would significantly detract from the view and cast large shadows over the area, potentially drawing visitors away from the immediate area. | 26/01/2022 | Object |
| I object to this for a number of reasons. I think it important to note the developer has already defaced the Ouseburn in their pursuit of volume over quality in their development carried out in partnership with Gentoo. That building development is a disgrace given the sensitivity of the site. They should not be allowed to develop on the Ouseburn again. In respect of this application my objections cover a range of issues: Quality of design; Quite obvious, but there's very little merit in a beige 18 story tower block in such a prominent position. Does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. - Parking; The submitted plans for Malmo Quay appear to only show 18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block, woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. *It's important to remember that the proposed 73 Parking Spaces on Spillers Wharf are not actually part of this application. Even then, at best they won't be available for at least 3-4 years, will also have to service the 76 apartments potentially being build there and there's a fully functioning carpark being removed to create that site * Accessibility - Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. Please reject this application | 26/01/2022 | Object |
| test | 26/01/2022 | Neutral |
| Huge tower totally out of place with the surroundings and will destroy one of the most iconic views in the country. | 26/01/2022 | Object |
| Will be an eyesore and block existing views | 26/01/2022 | Object |
| The design is totally out of keeping with the local history and current architecture of the suburb which is mostly repurposed former industrial buildings. It will spoil the atmosphere of this part of the quayside to the detriment of local businesses and residents. | 26/01/2022 | Object |
| This proposal is a very welcome addition to Newcastle's housing portfolio. The tall building will enhance the city skyline and will improve the general down at heel look of this part of the Quayside. Newcastle is the Regional Capital of the North East and in keeping with other large cities, for example Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield etc. etc. tall buildings are a true sign of inward investment and prosperity. The building itself is of an acceptable height and appearance and will be a welcome addition to similar structures that have recently been erected in Newcastle. I would urge the City Planners to approve this development, this type of building will greatly improve the surrounding area. | 26/01/2022 | Support |
| Hello - i would like object on a few points please - The Scale and massing of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for it's location. - Quality of design - There's very little merit in a beige 18 story tower block in such a prominent position. Does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. Accessibility - Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away Thanks Sam Neatrour | 26/01/2022 | Object |
| Ridiculous eyesore to destroy an internationally renowned vista overlooking the Tyne. | 26/01/2022 | Object |
| This is going take away from such a historical viewpoint that is beloved by many in the whole of Newcastle, as well as, from people all across the country. I feel this flat will be an eyesore on the quayside and takes away from the riverfront. For short term monetary gain, this will have a deep and everlasting impact on the Ouseburn, being the first of many nails in the coffin so area that should be seen as a hub for cultural, not expensive awful looking flat. I hope Newcastle City Council see sense and think about the greater area and how this would destroy it. | 27/01/2022 | Object |
| As a resident of the Quayside I truly object to this planning objection. In particular to the erection of the 18 storey block of flats on Malmo quay. I believe such a large block will have a significant impact on the amount of daylight and subsequent overshadowing to the local businesses and residents around the Ouseburn. Such a large tower will result in a loss of privacy to the other residents within the Ouseburn. The size of the proposal will have negative consequences on the ecological habitats within the Ouseburn. There are frequently a pair of swans that nest very close to this area as well as a number of other birds. I am worried that such a large development will create significant traffic and issues with parking in the area. This is a frequent area that I walk and run along and would be worried to visit the area if there was significant increased traffic, excess numbers of cars would block roads and pavements. This will make it difficult for people with disabilities and children to visit the area. In my opinion building such a large residential area so close to a tidal river provides significant issues regarding flooding. Given the obvious risk of climate change and rising sea levels sometime in the future it is likely the development will be flooded causing significant impact to the residents that live there. The designs of Malmo quay are not in line with other local architecture and will clash with a number of the listed buildings in the area. | 27/01/2022 | Object |
| My objection is specifically related to the size of the 18 floor 'Tower Building'. The size of this building is totally out of character with the rest of the Ouseburn area - it will completely dominate the whole of the mouth of the Ouseburn and the overall appearance of this section of the river will be damaged as a result. It will literally tower over everything surrounding it. The associated lower level townhouses are much more in-keeping with the area and will make a positive impact on the area. | 27/01/2022 | Object |
| The view from St Lawrence Road, westward towards the Tyne Bridge, is one of the finest remaining views of the riverscape. The proposed development - in particular the building to be located in the apex of the triangular site closest to the river - would destroy the view completely. While it is still possible to look along the river at river level I can not think of another vantage point which affords a similar view up the river towards the bridges from elevation. The view is popular with photographers, painters and passers-by. It would be completely wrong to rob the citizens of Newcastle of such a cultural treasure. | 27/01/2022 | Object |
| As a local resident I strongly object to the Malmo Tower application based on the following: The new build development is overly large in scale and out of keeping with the architecture of the area. New build development alters the rhythm of the quayside buildings. New build development obscures local landmarks for example the Sailor's Bethel. It does not adhere to the principles of accomodating the development - it doesn't maintain the scale, pattern and rhythm of the build quayside responding to the reduction in building scale and height towards the Ouseburn. It doesn't have any regard to the adjacent character areas. It certainly contravenes the need 'in planning any new development consideration should be given to strategic views along the Tyne. The proposed development, without mitigation measures, will have a substantial negative impact on the environment, in comparison to baseline indicators. I am passionate about the local area and understand that townhouses which are the appropriate scale next to Mariners Wharf should be built on Malmo Quay, but I am astounded that anyone can think that the tower is the right scale of our iconic Quayside. | 28/01/2022 | Object |
| The Malmo Quay proposal Fails to properly consider Newcastle council planning Policy: Q01 Quayside and Ouseburn Sub area: 3: leisure culture and tourism development that complements existing uses. Malmo proposal fails to do this, as is predominantly housing. Repositioning the Cycle hub is not adding to or improving current provision 4. Improving pedestrian and cycle access (iii): rationalising on street parking and promoting shared parking facilities. Malmo proposal shows only 18 parking spaces with no clear strategy to reduce car use and improve parking/ access for other users or residents 6: sustaining and enhancing the character of the area: re-use of vacant buildings; respecting the scale, plot sizes, topography and historic grain of the area. The Malmo proposal does none of these things and clearly contravenes this policy, by proposing an 18 storey tower block 8; enhancing the urban green infrastructure (iii): development providing green infrastructure or public spaces at Malmo Quay: The proposal does not enhance green space and public space and amenity. The current site clearly requires improvement but this proposal is not appropriate with regard to Newcastle Councils stated planning priorities and policy for the location Further representations are detailed here Further objections 1. The Scale and positioning of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for it's location. 2. Quality of design; There's very little merit in an 18 story tower block in such a prominent position. The design shows no sympathy or understanding of the context of the location. It Does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. 3. Parking; The submitted plans for Malmo Quay only include18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block. This provision woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. 4. The proposed 73 Parking Spaces on Spillers Wharf are not actually part of this application. Even then, at best they won't be available for at least 3-4 years, will also have to service the 76 apartments potentially being build there and a fully functioning carpark is being removed to create this site. Stating ‘ residents will have access’ to the ‘parking barn’ on the spillers site is no guarantee of adequate parking provision. It is ironic that the cycle hub and 72 cycle route are sited here: proposals need to increase walking and cycling provision, rather than add to the already significant car and parking issues 5. Accessibility - Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. There is no clear description of provision in the proposal to demonstrate that new residents will mot need or expect to have access to cars/ parking spaces 6. Planning Monoculture: more than sufficient/ too much private housing already exists on the quayside location: what is required is variety, not more of the same. Variations in housing design does not count- it is still housing with reduced public access. Malmo and Spillers quay proposals would see the locality dominated by private housing (with insufficient social housing provision. 7. Arguments of need for more housing do not stand in this location and the brownfield site argument is specious: there are numerous brownfield sites across Newcastle that could be developed for housing- many of them in a 1 mile radius of this proposal. The reality is the developers want this site because it will bring in more cash, not because of any claims to help solve local housing issues. 8. Lack of Environmental responsibility: Knocking down an existing building (cycle Hub) and rebuilding on Malmo quay; building a great big scrapers; new build generally with no consideration of alternative buildings for repurposing as housing. This will generate enormous quantities of Co2. There are MANY office buildings 1 mile away in the centre of Newcastle that can be repurposed as housing, for a fraction of the carbon output. 9. On 3 April 2019, the council declared a Climate Emergency to make Newcastle carbon neutral by 2030. GET ON WITH IT THEN- DON’T PAY LIP SERVICE. There is no justification for new build housing in this location in Newcastle, or any other, until repurposing and renovation options have been carried out 10. Local amenities (supermarket) will require car use or vehicle delivery, thus adding to local traffic congestion and reducing air quality. Local schools: none within reasonable waking distance. GP services, likewise. Planning design is clearly predicated on residents not adding to capacity issues on local schools and GP services. 11. Loss of public amenity- The pandemic and past 12 months have seen intense local use by residents of the nearby area: valued as a public amenity and space to socialise. The Malmo site would better developed as an accessible public space/ urban park, to extend local access and informal/ leisure use: NOT a private development that reduces local amenity 12. Cost/ benefit- the 18 story tower block is for the developers profit. There is no evidence evidence to suggest this has been considered as an appropriate scale or type of building for the location, apart from a self- fulfilling argument regarding commercial value. 13. The choice of a housing development and the location of this proposal is based on capital value of housing alone ie: maximum revenue to the developer. Considerations such as local benefit/ social value, commercial value for local hospitality / SMEs; health benefit of green space, better walking and cycling provision; educational benefit – local history, local social pride of place do not appear to have been accounted for in any kind of cohesive social/ economic cost befit analysis 14. Loss of destination/ visitor amenity: the mouth of the Ouseburn is well used by public and visitors due to its significance as a historical site and greatly admired local visual view of the river Tyne. eg: new year laser light shows 15. Iconic views of Tyne bridge and river are marketed by Newcastle- Gateshead as a destination, bringing significant value in terms of primary and secondary spend to the locality. Visitors will not come to see a tower block and some generic housing. 16. Inappropriate development on the mouth of the Ouseburn: reduces potential destination/ visitor income and reduces amenity and the significant local leisure and tourism destination value of the Ouseburn site as a whole and the quayside as a whole. This in turn will impact negatively on local businesses and trade 17. There is already sufficient/ too much private land development on the quayside and lover Ouseburn. This proposal excludes opportunity for different improvements and developments to public access and amenity. The Malmo site is ideally situated to: • Offer better local/ visitor use and access- urban park, seating, pop up café LOCAL BUSINESS etc • Offer appropriate and relevant development to tell the story and history of the Ouseburn and mouth of the Ouseburn- local history, • Create an open space to complement the linear spaces along the quayside; seating/ resting/ pop up cafes. Local events. Allow local public and visitors to enjoy the river, its views and its natural environment 18. Cycle path route 72: Already congested here and significant overlap with walking public and cycling. Access and pedestrian/ cycle use needs to be improved not restricted by yet more private development. 19. Also increased traffic/ congestion brought by the new residents has not been considered (over and above the wholly inadequate parking provision). Traffic flow here needs reducing NOT increasing. Safety, amenity air quality. | 28/01/2022 | Object |
| I don’t like it. Ouseburn is such a special place, especially during lockdown where people walk there to see the views and support their well-being and mental health. The tower block would have a huge impact on the view and is not in keeping. Thanks | 28/01/2022 | Object |
| As a frequent user of the Ouseburn ward, I find the proposal of an 18-storey tower block on the site of Malmo Quay not in-keeping with the Ouseburn area and its heritage. The scale of the tower adversely effects the skyline throughout the entirety of the Ouseburn, Quayside and into the East End wards. Its sheer size appears unjustifiable, given the dramatic increase in housing in the ward over recent years already. Despite the merits of its environmental design, the tower adds no value in terms of its exterior design. It is hard to describe in as anything other than an eye sore. The reason for the Ouseburn's popularity is the fact it offers something different from a city-centre ambiance; the reclaimed former industrial buildings, the quiet low-rise street scene - exceeded only by the uniquely dramatic historical chimneys - are why people are drawn to the area. In addition, the low levels of traffic in the area also encourage pedestrians into the area, walking between myriad of independent drinking and dining establishments in the area. The increased traffic brought about from the new residents and their vehicles will lead to potential accidents between pedestrians and motor vehicles and discourage this type of usage in the ward. With limited public transport links to the site, car usage in the area will increase drastically. The increased need for car access by any prospective new residents would also effect neighbouring areas of the Ouseburn and Quayside areas adversely. With insufficient space to adequately provide parking for the proposed 62 new apartments, new residents would inevitably park in nearby streets throughout the ward, turning the quiet streets into an extension of a parking lot. As a former Town Planning graduate, I appreciate fully the need to meet new housing demands in the city, as well the desire to transform brownfield sites. However, the negatives of this proposal far outweigh the positives and endanger what, to this point, has been a successful revitalisation of the Ouseburn ward. | 28/01/2022 | Object |
| I strongly object to these proposals. The area is of great value to residents and visitors alike and has historical and cultural significance. The proposed plans would significantly change both the landscape and the nature of the area. It would be an eyesore from every angle and would also block some valuable views of the quayside looking south. To allow this building to be built would be to tarnish some deep routed history and to damage some of the most beautiful and valuable views and landscapes that the city has to offer. | 28/01/2022 | Object |
| As a nearby residenct I'm opposed to this proposal- I don't think it will fit in with the historic quayside area, negatively impacting the landscape with the size and scale of the buiding. It will increase traffic and pedestrian safety and overshadow the buildings already in the area. | 28/01/2022 | Object |
| - The Scale and massing of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for it's location. - Quality of design; Quite obvious, but there's very little merit in a beige 18 story tower block in such a prominent position. Does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. - Parking; The submitted plans for Malmo Quay appear to only show 18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block, woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. *It's important to remember that the proposed 73 Parking Spaces on Spillers Wharf are not actually part of this application. Even then, at best they won't be available for at least 3-4 years, will also have to service the 76 apartments potentially being build there and there's a fully functioning carpark being removed to create that site * Accessibility - Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. | 28/01/2022 | Object |
| This is not in keeping with the local area at all. It will tower over established homes and businesses. It will further cause congestion as additional motor vehicles will require access in and out and there is no adequate parking provided. This is ill thought out, ugly and imposing on others. | 28/01/2022 | Object |
| Below are my observations and comments of opposing this planning from a seriously concerned local Ouseburn resident. These comments I shall address in two parts, firstly the aesthetics and size of this proposal, secondly the issues this project will undoubtably create thereafter. 1. Whereas as I appreciate the portfolio of the architects involved in this project, this is simply the wrong location for such a design -wholly inappropriate for the area which will only have a negative impact on all that this local community has strived to build over the last two decades. Of course I would like to see the land put to good use but why should this always default to multi story blocks of residential addresses many of whom local residents will be unable to make use of? The land needs to be utilised to its fullest in keeping with the local area and should be utilised to help attract more people to the area to enjoy all it has to offer. 1. In TimeOut's latest annual ranking, Newcastle's Ouseburn is 29th of 49 ‘cool neighbourhoods’ in some of the world's greatest cities, rubbing shoulders with communities in London, Los Angeles, Seoul, Melbourne, Paris, Rio de Janeiro, Berlin, Montreal, Barcelona and New York. (Newcastle Chronicle & TimeOut magazine). It is for this reason amongst many that visitors outside of Northumbria continue to visit our region to enjoy the local beauty and culture of its vibrant arts, crafts and night life. 1. “Over the last twenty years the Ouseburn Valley has undergone a dramatic transformation from post-industrial wasteland to Newcastle’s foremost cultural and creative quarter, helped in large part by a raft of investment and community-led regeneration.” (www.ouseburn.co.uk). It is important to highlight how the local Ouseburn community has invested its own time, money, volunteers and passion for the local area into regenerating the beautiful and cultural shape of Osbourne as it sits now. This cannot be overlooked when deciding the fate of this land-the local Ouseburn community simply do not want this! 1. The issues. Aside from the aesthetics, the first thing of concern is the lack of infrastructure support around the development. We are already bracing ourselves with a raised eyebrow on the arrival of the proposed ‘Whey-aye wheel’ - sold to us as a world iconic landmark due to arrive a few hundred yards down the road and still the issue of vehicles, parking, public transport and the knock on effect this will have for local residents is still to be worked out. This new proposal proposes less than 30% car parking spaces for the flats designed to be built-and this is assuming that those residents will be a one car family! Just where will all the other vehicles be able to park and what effect will this have on the region when considering visitors to Ouseburn using the Tyne Bar, The Free Trade Inn and other local businesses along the Ouseburn itself? The simple answer is it won’t, it can’t! The council has invested money in alleviating Hadrian Road to be a safe cycle space and let’s not forget it is a nightly route for local running clubs and enthusiastic sports people. The Q3 has already been re-diverted up onto Walker Road and therefore will create more disruption for local residents eager to access public transport. 2. Ouseburn itself has been, so far relatively self-policing with minimal crime compared to other neighbourhoods within Newcastle city council borough. With new developments, more residents, more traffic and less parking opportunities will cause a rise in traffic disruption and a renewed attraction to potential vehicle crime. Routes to this location are already limited for emergency services with the only accessible road being Horatio Street. The alternative is to divert down St Lawrence Road - an already busy combination of residential parking and businesses, taking the route past the proposed aforementioned wheel once developed, and therefore placing even more pressure on local police and ambulance services. In conclusion, aside from the monstrosity of this proposal it is simply not viable and will place an increased pressure on Newcastle city council to service the aftermath of the disruption this will cause. Maybe even more importantly, the council will undoubtably lose the trust and respect of the local Ouseburn community. | 28/01/2022 | |
| Please see file attachment | 28/01/2022 | Object |
| The construction of this project will irreversibly damage the iconic and historic quayside area. On a more personal level, the structure will also affect the light we receive in our residence, and anyone who occupies it will be able to see immediately into our window, removing any sense of privacy. I cant sit by and not plead for this project to be reconsidered. Not only for how it will damage the quality of life in my residence, but also for the entire surrounding area. | 28/01/2022 | Object |
| The overall design quality of this complex is poor and it will degrade the Quayside. A tall building at this site needs to be thinner, not a fat block that will appear old-fashioned and a throw-back to the bad old days of city planning. The apparent use of poor quality brick and poor design also impacts the low level residential blocks. This is a world-class site and this is a 4th rate design which will bring down the reputation of the area and the city. | 29/01/2022 | Object |
| There are many reasons why I object including it being unnecessary and hideous in its design. It has taken years for the quayside to look good and this manages to undo all of that effort in one fell swoop. | 29/01/2022 | Object |
| I wish to object most strongly to the proposed project for the Malmo quay on the following grounds 1: The proposed building is far far far to large for the beautiful area that is the ouseburn, the layout & amount of people who will live there is out of kilter with the area. 2: The loss of daylight to the adjacent building due to the gross oversizing of the proposal, even during the day this building is going to overshadow most of the surrounding area. 3: This building is going to cause a gross loss of privacy to the surrounding area. 4: Has any thought been given to the extra traffic that is going to be generated, the car parking space required, the means of access to this building, this will impact of access for the emergency services. 5: The impact on the landscape & the wildlife which lives around this area of land will be devastating. 6: This is an area of listed buildings & conservation areas, all of which are going to be adversely effected if these proposals are approved. 7: There is going to be a great deal of noise & disturbance during the construction & post construction in the area of this building. 8: every area of green space which is built n increases the likelihood of flooding, has this been taken into consideration? 9; This proposal is totally unsuitable for this jewel in the crown of Newcastle, it would ruin the ouseburn, if you wish to see how a total monstrosity of a building can totally ruin an area go & look at the Strawberry pub next to the football ground, whoever gave that the go ahead should be horsewhipped. Don't make the same mistake twice. reject this & slap a no build policy on this last small piece of greenery on the riverside | 29/01/2022 | Object |
| Not in keeping with surroundings nor heritage. | 29/01/2022 | Object |
| This would be an eyesore, detract from the atmosphere in that area of the quayside and ultimately become an additional financial burden on our already stretched council when the developers start to reduce the money they put into the upkeep or put the contract out to tender. | 29/01/2022 | Object |
| Dear Sir/Madam, I would like to strongly object against the decision to construct this large tower block on Newcastle quayside. I believe that the erection of such a structure would do more harm than good in the community. To start off, the building is not at all in line with what we have in the surrounding area. It will dwarf the surrounding buildings and, frankly, is something of an eyesore. To make our city a greener one we should be repurposing old buildings and creating affordable, energy efficient homes. Not luxury apartments overlooking the river. Moreover, the transport links to this area are very poor. The tenants of these buildings are likely to have issues with parking. A building of this size is likely to cast huge shadows over the surrounding buildings. Businesses like the Free Trade - one of Newcastle's most treasured and frequented pubs in this part of the city - will have its beautiful view obscured and could lose a lot of business. Please consider the ramifications of grafting this monolith onto our beautiful westerly skyline. Kind regards, Niall Straughan | 29/01/2022 | Object |
| I am writing this objection as I feel there are many issues with this property development that will have a major impact to the surrounding area of Newcastle's quayside. Firstly, the appearance of the planned buildings are remarkably unattractive. Newcastle holds great pride in it's lovely quayside and a beige 18 storey tower block would do a great job of spoiling this. The surrounding repurposed buildings making up the Ouseburn is an exciting and up and coming area of Newcastle. I for one, always bring any of my visiting friends and family to this area and the tower block looks out of place amongst this. It simply doesn't fit with the setting and seeing these planning suggestions really saddens me. I'm fully aware you don't take into consideration loss of view when reading an objection however you must consider the impact that this tower block has on pubs like the free trade. An absolute staple of Newcastle which my parents went to when they were students and I have gone to for years. The fact you are considering to spoil the view from this iconic pub but also spoil the general area surrounding it, is astounding. When looking at the details of the plans in further depth there are clear flaws to the plan itself anyway. I notice you are suggesting 18 parking spaces for the 62 apartments. All of those cars therefore having to fill up the surrounding streets and most likely interfere with the bike path which me and many others use every day on the commute to work. The location is also an issue with nearby public transport links requiring decent walks to metro stations. This then means more cars/taxis in the quayside area. The size of the entire proposed project is such a vast an inconspicuous plan that you simply can't expect the people of Newcastle to accept this with open arms. It's far bigger then the surrounding area, it looks ugly, it spoils the fantastic quayside and in my opinion it is simply not needed. The focus should be on more affordable housing as opposed to providing what is most likely going to be expensive apartments which only focus is on gaining a decent profit. I really hope you read this and understand the effect that this development will have on the area and can recognise I am writing this from genuine concern. If this goes ahead it will be remarkably upsetting to watch this project being developed. Please take all of my points into account Regards, Owen Sylvester | 29/01/2022 | Object |
| This enormous building will be an eyesore. It will ruin the view frommany vantage points, especially some places whose charm is defined partly by that vista. Please don't allow it to be built. | 29/01/2022 | Object |
| 18 storey tower block completely out of keeping and much larger than any other building in the surrounding area. Will dominate the area and is inappropriate in design. High rise building is ugly and would create an eyesore on the quayside. Needs more green spaces for people to enjoy along the quayside. Nowhere near enough parking on the proposed Malmo Quays site. Already new developments without enough car parking in the local area (Malings, Steenberg Yards, flats being built next to Malings on old Quay Timber site). A further large housing development without enough parking/electric charging points will create issues for parking in local area and lead to further street congestion. Access roads are also not likely to be able to cope with such a large new development. This and the addition of Spillers Wharf/whey aye wheel is likely to lead to serious issues with congestion and pollution (both air and noise). The current car park on Spillers Wharf site is nearly always busy - with this gone I worry where the cars will be parking. They will all end up in the local area. A significant increase in housing will only exacerbate the problem. Public transport in the area could be improved. Limited bus routes (only one along the quayside). To access other bus routes/metro have to walk for at least 15 mins up a steep incline. This makes it less accessible for elderly residents or those with disabilities. The additional population, traffic and footfall are likely to negatively affect the wildlife around the ouseburn and quayside and may lead to more river pollution. | 30/01/2022 | Object |
| The building is too tall and is ugly | 30/01/2022 | Object |
| Objection to the Malmo Quay site proposed development: Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 When a Local Planning Authority considers development impacts on a conservation area, Section 72 of 1990 Act states that “with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area…special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area”. Having looked at the artist's view of the development I fail to see how this development takes account of the surrounding area in terms of local cultural heritage and how it would enhance the area. National Planning Policy Framework (2021) Paragraph 130 relates to design and states that planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments: “c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities)” The design is not in the least sympathetic to local character and history. It is not in keeping with the buildings around it and in my view, it is not innovative bringing a cultural element to the area. Policy DM16 provides further details as to how the impact of development upon the setting of heritage assets will be assessed. Policy DM16 notes that development proposals that impact the setting of heritage assets will be required to: 1. Ensure that its design, location, siting, form and appearance conserves or enhances the significance of the heritage asset, its setting and surrounding key views. 2. Consider any additional impacts on the setting of heritage assets, including the degree of permanence of any impact. I am not an architect, but I do want to see a construction that is pleasing to the eye and in keeping and sympathetic to the strong cultural heritage of its surroundings. This tower building fails on all accounts, and it fails the residents not only of Byker and the Ouseburn but all residents in Newcastle. Furthermore, I believe it will have a negative effect on tourism in the area. The council need to consider the effect of the number of dwellings on the road infrastructure in the area and also the space for car parking associated with the development. In my view, this development is totally against the policy statements which are there to assist in the preservation and enhancement of the conservation area. This development does not achieve this. Newcastle Council are supposedly committed to ensuring that there is affordable housing in new developments this development does not seem to be in keeping with this view. Newcastle is a vibrant city and well thought of across the Uk and beyond. We have a strong heritage of innovation and social care. It is my opinion that the councillors of Newcastle want more for this area than a mediocre development which will simply fill a space in what is a very significant historical area where small businesses thrive and grow. Detriment to surrounding building through loss of light and increased daytime shadowing, increased parking facilities and increased impact on the road system are for me credible indicators that this development is wrong for the area. It is my opinion that the council do not allow planning permission in its present form. | 30/01/2022 | Object |
| Dear Jill, Please accept this as a comment in support of the application at Malmo Quay. The proposed development contains a mix of new housing, a new cycle hub and an additional commercial unit, along with a vastly improved public realm. I also believe that the design and layout of the scheme are well designed and will give the sort of variety that the junction between the Ouseburn and the Quayside requires. I also believe that the scheme as a whole has a high standard of urban and architectural design. I would however be interested to know the energy performance of these buildings and whether they are above the minimum building regulations standards. The contentious element appears to be the tower. The points I would make in this regard are: - Most of the designs made public for this site in recent years have been based around a tower. That would suggest that due to the multiple site constraints this site will only be viable with the construction of a tower. - The design of this tower - if built with quality materials to the design submitted - is in my opinion vastly better than previous applications. - The placement of the tower both reduces the impact upon views from neighbouring sites and is less imposing due to being sited further inland, behind the lower rise buildings. On balance therefore I believe that without significant public money this is the best quality development that the city can expect on this site. | 30/01/2022 | Support |
| I object to this development due to 1) it’s impact on THE major heritage asset in Newcastle - the Tyne Bridge and its context. The scale of this development dominates the heritage asset from the east end of the city and from the Quayside and Ouseburn. This is entirely in contravention of the Newcastle local plan . The Local plan policy number DM15 also states that any development should conserve the appearance of a heritage asset and its setting. This development contravenes this policy. The policy further states that any developments must justify their development and it’s impact on the heritage asset and its context. I see no such justification. 2) I also object on the basis of contravention of the Local Plan’s traffic and cycling policies. This is a major development at great distance from a metro station and with very poor bus connections. It all cuts right through a National Cycle Scheme cycle route with now clear detail as to how it will preserve and enhance the quality and safety of cycling in the area which is extremely popular. The recent death of a young woman cyclist in the area shows how dangerous it can be to cycle without appropriate traffic management protections and this development will hugely increased car traffic as no appropriate alternatives are in place. This is in clear contravention of the Local Plan. 3) Finally I object on the grounds of very poor quality design, utterly out of keeping with the area of reimagining past industrial heritage of which we are very proud. | 30/01/2022 | Object |
| The Scale and massing of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for it's location. - Quality of design; Quite obvious, but there's very little merit in a beige 18 story tower block in such a prominent position. Does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. - Parking; The submitted plans for Malmo Quay appear to only show 18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block, woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. Accessibility - Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. | 30/01/2022 | Object |
| The proposed development is not in keeping with the local area, the tower block is much too tall and there's not enough parking for the number of residents it would bring. | 30/01/2022 | Object |
| There is architectural interest in this plan, both the tower and townhouses are well thought out and unique and care has clearly been taken to set the tower back from the view from the pubs. The quality of the building already undertaken by Igloo at The Malings suggest this too will be of high build quality. We need more flats for minorities without families - singles people, LGBT+ and couples who choose not to have children. A development of this type will also entice post-graduate students to remain in the city as opposed to moving South. It is much preferable for the environment to build high density living on a brownfield site (currrently an empty piece of quay with a substation) than to build more new build estates with no architectural merit over large swathes of what was previously green belt surronding the city. These estates reduce biodiversity, increase flooding risk and can often only be accessed by cars, burning more fossil fuels. The planned tower will have excellent transport links with the quaybus and it is on a major cycle route; you can also walk to the city within minutes. We need more developments of this type - innovative builds on brownfields sites. | 30/01/2022 | Support |
| The main objection I have is to the massing and scale of the tower, which is not at all in keeping with the surrounding area. The tower is many times larger than any building in its immediate surroundings, and a development of this size would not be at all in keeping with the character of the Quayside, Ouseburn valley or the lower east end of the city. The development also runs counter to strategic objective SO9 of the council's Spatial Vision strategy - "Ensure the development and use of land protects, sustains and enhances the quality of the natural, built and historic environment...". A huge tower block amongst a series of lower rise buildings does nothing to sustain or protect the surrounding natural, built or historic environments, and certainly doesn't enhance it. I would also consider the type of accommodation offered by a tall tower block to not be of the type suitable for long term family accommodation, as there is a lack of access to green spaces and outdoor areas, which have become all the more desirable since the pandemic. The site specific policies for this area of the quayside and lower Ouseburn praise the "distinctive character and sense of place" of the area (16.76), which a tall tower block would not be in keeping with. Paragraph 16.81 of the same document says "it is important that development respects the topography of the Gorge and sustains and enhances the historic character of the Quayside and Ouseburn." - again, something which the building of a tower block would run completely counter to. The same paragraph references the importance of the topography of the landscape to determining the scale of the buildings which are developed there, which I would read to mean that the massing of any development should not dominate the landscape, as a residential tower would. | 31/01/2022 | Object |
| I live in Newcastle city centre and regard the Ouseburn area as a jewel in the city's crown. It is a welcome haven for cyclists, dog-walkers, music lovers, foodies, etc and should be celebrated as such by the council. The suggested tower block does not fit with this ethos at all, and will inevitably lead to increased congestion, traffic and related complaints. There is clearly not enough parking in the plans, there appears to be no inclusion of affordable housing. I would hope that Newcastle Council would be justifiably proud of the creative and relaxing environment that has grown up around the Ouseburn Valley and would take care to nurture, promote and protect that. | 31/01/2022 | Object |
| I have strong concerns about this development in all areas - - An 18 storey modern tower block is very much at odds with the local area, which is currently based around considerate redevelopment of existing heritage commercial buildings. It will dominate the skyline and draw attention from such architecturally important developments as Baltic Mill, Sage Gateshead, Toffee Factory and the Millennium Bridge. - It is at odd with your own stated spatial vision and strategy to “adhere to sustainability principles and deliver high standards of design, enhancing the quality and distinctiveness of Gateshead and Newcastle. Development will also be ecologically sustainable and designed to protect and where possible enhance biodiversity and the natural environment...There will be an emphasis on a low carbon economy and sustainable development. This will have been supported by a major increase in renewable and low-carbon energy capacity and new development will have been designed to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change.” - There is insufficient conservation of parking and the impact on local areas, 18 parking spots for 62 apartments is woefully inadequate and will cause disruption to local residents as well as increased risk of danger to users of the national cycle network that passes immediately next to this development. - This building will tower over other buildings in the area, causing considerable loss of light and overlooking residents and businesses. - There is limited public transport in the area and local infrastructure is not in a position to support a major increase to traffic. - there appears to be little consideration for affordable or family orientated housing designed to bring people to Newcastle beyond second homes, investment properties and holiday rentals(borne out through the lack of thought to residents parking - they do not intend this development to be owner occupied). In all areas, this development does not meet the minimum standards required by your own planning guidelines and I must object. | 31/01/2022 | Object |
| To whom It may concern, I object to this planning application on Malmo Quays as it will have a detrimental impact not only on Ouseburn and the Quayside but Newcastle as a whole. The size, appearance and layout will dramatically change the skyline of Newcastle. The proposed tower is an insult to the surrounding architecture and will detract from Newcastle's iconic bridges. However, the appearance of this monstrosity is not the most pressing issue. The complete lack of consideration of how this development would affect the surrounding businesses and residents is of huge concern. The inevitable overflow of cars because of a lack of parking will have a huge impact on the quayside, and surrounding streets. Businesses such as The Free Trade Inn and The Tyne Bar are integral to Ouseburn'c culturally rich community, if this planning application was to be approved it would drastically impact this independent business. For the above reasons along with the concern's listed by others, I urge you to object. Yours Sincerely, Joe Smith | 31/01/2022 | Object |
| I object to the 18 storey Tower block proposal which is included within the Malmo Quay application. The City Council have been carefully regenerating the Quayside for decades, and have successfully created a Nationally admired water frontage to the City. There is no Tower block built along the Quayside, and the proposal for an 18 storey block will be a substantial isolated structure that will be architecturally out of place and destroy the water frontage appearance as a result. The further careful design of the regeneration of the historically important Ouseburn area will also be architecturally compromised by the Tower block as it sits at the point where the Ouseburn meets the River Tyne. The Tower block is out of place at Malmo as it stands in complete isolation to any other building along the Quayside and the Ouseburn. Additionally, the area around Malmo Quay has a significantly increasing number of visiting pedestrian public families, which are welcomed into the regeneration of the Ouseburn Valley. The significantly increased vehicle traffic generated by the occupants of an 18 storey Tower block, will compromise the health and safety of public access to the east end of the Quayside and Ouseburn area. | 31/01/2022 | Object |
| To whom it may concern, Malmo and Spillers Quay – Hybrid Planning Application, December 2021 I write to raise my serious concerns regarding the above planning application. Having assessed details of the proposed development it is clear that it would have a cataclysmic effect on the character and cohesiveness of the Quayside-Ouseburn landscape. The proposals fall short in a number of critical respects: - The sheer size and scale of the proposed development would inflict irreversible damage on the skyline of the Quayside, Ouseburn, and East End. - It would also interfere with the iconic sightlines enjoyed by countless residents and established businesses. These businesses are frequented by individuals and families from across the city, and beyond; indeed, many of these businesses – including the Free Trade Inn – are known globally. Thus, the potential damage arising from these proposals would be felt deeply and widely. - As anyone who frequents that part of Newcastle knows, infrastructure is at a premium. It is disturbing, therefore, that the proposed development is to be so poorly served in terms of parking provision (in particular). Having lived for many years on the Staithes South Bank development in Gateshead, I know only too well the conflict such poor provision can cause, particularly when car parking spills out into surrounding areas – as it inevitably would in this case. This is especially troubling given how popular this area of Newcastle is with cyclists and pedestrians. To summarise: this is an ill-considered proposal which, if supported, would do profound damage to one of the few areas of Newcastle that has not already been touched by shoddy, low quality development. History would not look kindly on those who support it. For these reasons, I strongly urge you to reject it. Yours sincerely, Oliver Moss 10 Essex Gardens Gateshead NE9 5BB | 31/01/2022 | Object |
| I would like to place an objection on several counts. The huge building is completely out of keeping with others in the surrounding area. It will dominate the skyline and is totally inappropriate. There is so much history and beautiful architecture around the quayside and the tower is a complete monstrosity. To be planning multiple residences in this area which isn't equipt for more people doesn't make sense. There are very poor public transport links in this area to connect with the rest of Newcastle. This will mean potential residents will need cars. Where will they park their cars? The area is very busy in the mornings and evenings already. How will the roads cope with the increased traffic. It will also result in more pollution in the area. This will have an impact on local habitat as well as causing more air pollution. I do not believe any new housing will be affordable. Whilst development is ongoing it will damage tourism to the area. This will be an irreversible detrimental change to what is currently a huge asset to the city. | 31/01/2022 | Object |
| Please reject the application for the high rise proposal at Malmo Quay. It is out of keeping with the area and other low rise buildings on the Quayside. It contributes nothing to the heritage of the area in style or size. It destroys the view of the church and put other buildings in shade. It is the wrong building in the wrong place and must be rejected for present and future dignity of our riverscape and townscape. | 01/02/2022 | Object |
| As an Ouseburn business owner I wish to object in the strongest possible terms to this monstrous proposal. Heritage: The proposal clearly contravenes Local Plan policies DM15 (Conservation of Heritage Assets) and DM16 (Conservation and Enhancement of the Setting of Heritage Assets). The scale and design of this development is totally out of keeping with the Ouseburn area and the wider Quayside area. The Ouseburn area is a treasure that must not be destroyed by thoughtless development. The mockup pictures show the iconic skyline being totally ruined right down to the Tyne Bridge. I have watched in admiration as the ugliest buildings around Newcastle and Gateshead have been removed over the past decade; are we to replace them with others which are even more ugly and out of place for the commercial gain of a few? Landscape and ecology: This area is a peaceful haven enjoyed by many walkers and cyclists, a short distance from the city centre. The development would completely change the landscape, turning it into just another housing estate. Malmo Quay is the perfect place for more green development. We should be encouraging walking and cycling in this area, not discouraging it. What was the point of the sensitive investment in the area previously (e.g. Ouseburn barrier, the Toffee Factory, etc) if we now allow property developers to do as they please? Infrastructure, Accessibility, Pollution and Safety: The infrastructure around the proposed development cannot support it. It is poorly serviced by public transport and consequently the area will inevitably be accompanied by an influx of new vehicles and pollution. There’s also very little provision for parking so most of these cars will be forced to park in the surrounding streets, further blighting the area. The development is also right on the path of National Cycle Route 72 – part of the Coast to Coast – which is one of the most popular in the country. In summary this is a very ill-considered proposal that should be rejected outright. Please do not allow the developers to play the game where they deliberately start with something totally unacceptable, then make a few changes in response to objections, allowing their watered down proposals to get approval – when it was what they planned all along. We have seen this too many times in Newcastle. | 01/02/2022 | Object |
| Hello, I am writing as I am a frequent visitor of Ouseburn, somewhere I have loved to visit ever since I was a child. Like many locals, I have loved that Ouseburn has remained true to Newcastle, whilst also undergoing several developments. The Cluny, The Ship Inn, The Free Trade Inn, Kiln, and the Tyne Bar are all at the core of what Newcastle is - welcoming environments that compliment the beautiful surroundings and give both locals and tourists the chance to truly take in the views of Ouseburn, The Quayside and our beautiful river Tyne. A residential block of 18 storeys will not only destroy these businesses (especially The Free Trade Inn due to the proximity and the fact that the building will block their famed view), but will no doubt create endless problems for residents of Malmo Quay, residents of surrounding houses/flats, and visitors to the area. The 18 storey block is in no way in keeping with the surrounding area - there are no buildings outside the city centre of that height. The Quayside and Ouseburn have retained the historical architecture that makes Newcastle different from all other cities, representing what was once a thriving industrial city. As an extremely large new build, Malmo Quay is so ill fitting to such an environment. Is it possible that such a large building may also disturb the Kittiwakes who have spent so many years building a sizable population? In addition, the residents in the surrounding apartment blocks will suffer tremendously by this build. Malmo Quay will create extreme overshadowing, meaning there won’t be any sunlight for those with balconies. I also personally feel that with such a large number of apartments in the block, the tower may create noise pollution for the surrounding residents. Not only that, but the residents of Malmo Quay may also create ACTUAL pollution, with regard to littering or general waste, that may then end up in the river. Further to this, such a large number of flats will create a very large traffic problem in an area, which at the moment, generally consists of pedestrians. The businesses surrounding the proposed building rely on pedestrians, and thus, such traffic would not only cause issues for the businesses, but may create additional safety issues. Not to mention, yet again, the pollution that will come from the excess vehicles in the area. In conclusion, I do not agree with this proposed development. I believe it would be extremely detrimental to the area, in every single way. Thank you for your time. | 01/02/2022 | |
| Hello, I am writing as I am a frequent visitor of Ouseburn, somewhere I have loved to visit ever since I was a child. Like many locals, I have loved that Ouseburn has remained true to Newcastle, whilst also undergoing several developments. The Cluny, The Ship Inn, The Free Trade Inn, Kiln, and the Tyne Bar are all at the core of what Newcastle is - welcoming environments that compliment the beautiful surroundings and give both locals and tourists the chance to truly take in the views of Ouseburn, The Quayside and our beautiful river Tyne. A residential block of 18 storeys will not only destroy these businesses (especially The Free Trade Inn due to the proximity and the fact that the building will block their famed view), but will no doubt create endless problems for residents of Malmo Quay, residents of surrounding houses/flats, and visitors to the area. The 18 storey block is in no way in keeping with the surrounding area - there are no buildings outside the city centre of that height. The Quayside and Ouseburn have retained the historical architecture that makes Newcastle different from all other cities, representing what was once a thriving industrial city. As an extremely large new build, Malmo Quay is so ill fitting to such an environment. Is it possible that such a large building may also disturb the Kittiwakes who have spent so many years building a sizable population? In addition, the residents in the surrounding apartment blocks will suffer tremendously by this build. Malmo Quay will create extreme overshadowing, meaning there won’t be any sunlight for those with balconies. I also personally feel that with such a large number of apartments in the block, the tower may create noise pollution for the surrounding residents. Not only that, but the residents of Malmo Quay may also create ACTUAL pollution, with regard to littering or general waste, that may then end up in the river. Further to this, such a large number of flats will create a very large traffic problem in an area, which at the moment, generally consists of pedestrians. The businesses surrounding the proposed building rely on pedestrians, and thus, such traffic would not only cause issues for the businesses, but may create additional safety issues. Not to mention, yet again, the pollution that will come from the excess vehicles in the area. In conclusion, I do not agree with this proposed development. I believe it would be extremely detrimental to the area, in every single way. Thank you for your time. | 01/02/2022 | Object |
| To whom it may concern, I am writing to make clear my strong objections regarding the planning application for Malmo Quay (2021/2404/01/EIA). As a quayside resident I am aware that this piece of land is of value due to its location. It is therefore inevitable that applications will be made and eventually approved for developments here. However, after reading through the proposals for this planning application I have a number of reasons for my objection which I would like to detail below. · The proposed size of this development would be significantly larger than any other in the area and consequently would have a negative impact on the visual amenity of the Quayside. This development would also seem to go against the recommendations outlined in the Tyne Gorge study. · The proposal to build 62 apartments, 13 town houses and other buildings for businesses on the site would have a huge impact on traffic and parking in the area. The accessibility to the quayside is already limited and the proposal that these additional residents will be mostly rented by those without parking or road access requirements seems unlikely. These flats will be in a prime location on the quayside and based on the parking requirements of the buildings already in the area, it would be unrealistic to assume that a similar need for parking and access would not also be required for this new development. · My final point to raise is around the impacts to residents already living in the area. Should this development be approved, residents of existing and new buildings will face increased noise pollution, loss of light from overshadowing and loss of privacy from looking directly out over other residents’ balconies and windows. Finally, I have a couple questions to raise based on the above points: 1) I would like to ask if any studies have been completed to assess the parking needs for new residents based on those buildings already in the area. 2) Have any studies been conducted looking into the potential traffic and pollution impacts of these additional residents? 3) Should this development be approved, would Newcastle City Council work to improve the local infrastructure to accommodate the increased usage by the residents of these buildings? 4) If these apartments are mostly going to be rented by people without vehicles, what improvements will Newcastle City Council be making to the local public transport? There is currently only a limited bus service and no metro station available to residents locally. I hope you will consider these points and those raised by others when reviewing this application. I am sure a more suitable and beneficial development could be found for this piece of land which would not be so objectionable. Yours Sincerely, Ian Davidson 72 High Quay, City Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE12PD | 01/02/2022 | Object |
| To whom it may concern, I am writing to object to the proposed plans. To build a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside and Ouseburn - this would be the biggest building on the Quayside by some margin. In addition, it would be an eyesore. The Quayside and Ouseburn are architecturally fascinating areas, and most of the newer buildings fit well within the overall aesthetic. We now have a vibrant and thriving Quayside which incorporates old and new buildings. This, however, is a gigantic beige monstrosity. | 01/02/2022 | Object |
| Whilst supportive of certain aspects of this development, I feel that the proposed tower block is completely inappropriate. It would have a hugely negative impact on visual amenity from surrounding buildings - most notably the iconic view of Newcastle's bridges and sunset from the Free trade Inn which is such a wonderful advertisement for the city and its Quayside area. The proposed tower block is too high and its design is not sympathetic to the surrounding buildings and infrastructure - including buildings within the same development. Removal of the tower and development of the site at a lower (three storey) level would be far more appropriate for the site. | 01/02/2022 | Object |
| Further developments in the Ouseburn area should not exceed 4 stories else they a) drastically affect the look and feel of this area / cause excessive overshadowing / effect privacy and b) involve a density of housing which causes congestion an already struggling area and inevitably affecting air quality due to increased traffic. While a development of this site could improve the area the proposal for a tower of this size is particularly distasteful and shows a total lack of regard for the local community and landscape. Aside from looking awful and not in keeping with the architecture of the area, a tower of such size would increase the the population in the area substantially, inevitably resulting in increased noise, congestion and disturbance for existing residents. Plans for high density housing in an area with such a small footprint can only be driven by profit and this type of development will ultimately lead to the destruction of what is currently a peaceful area, and a popular destination for this reason. | 01/02/2022 | Object |
| I strongly object to this development. The proposed development includes a building which is completely out of sync in terms of scale, size and design with the surrounding area. It will be the biggest building by far in the area and it will completely dominate the Quayside and Ouseburn. Not only does it not suit the area, the design of the building is unattractive and will detract from the urban beauty of the area, which currently comprises of many historic industrial buildings. This area is used by many local residents and visitors for walking/running/cycling. It is a tourist attraction in its own right. By developing this area in this way it will create an eyesore which will not only undermine the appeal of the area visually but it will have a detrimental impact on the well-being of those using the area. As well as objecting from an aesthetic perspective I also object from a practical perspective which includes safety and environmental impact. The submitted plans for Malmo Quay appear to only show 18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block, this is hugely inadequate and will lead to even greater pressures on local on-street parking. Even if the proposed development goes ahead at Spillers Quay this will still be inadequate for the amount of residences as well as businesses in the area, especially as it will mean the removal of a current well used car park. Furthermore the development is on the national cycle route. This pressure for parking will therefore create potentially dangerous situations for cyclists. It will therefore potentially deter cyclists from using the route on use, thus again impacting on well-being. It’s also not a good look given Newcastle council’s drive to reduce emissions and improve conditions for cyclists. In addition public transport links are extremely limited in the area with no buses currently passing. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve walking up steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. Local services are also some distance away. Therefore this will increase the need for residents to use their cars. This is therefore not a sound ecological or sustainable development. Therefore the combination of a lack of parking, coupled with a lack of local services and a lack of public transport will create a toxic mix where residents but don’t have space to park thus being both environmentally unsound, impractical and unsafe. I therefore object to this application on numerous grounds including visual impact, safety, PR, practicality and environmental impact | 01/02/2022 | Object |
| I am a resident of Heaton that spends a lot of time in the Ouseburn area. Today I walked along the Ouse and had to visit seven stories to finalize taking a group of refugees there. All the old converted and listed buildings are appropriate to the heritage of the area. There have been many ( probably too many) new flats built into that area right now. The last thing this area would need is a tower block of 18 storeys. You do not need to be a town planner to know that an area which includes the Ouseburn trust conservation team cannot support such an objectionable building. Furthermore, I see that there is an assumption that very few owners of these flats would have cars. Again an extremely unlikely projection. The light of the Ouseburn area is also particularly noticeable in such a bright day and all these residents and workers and visitors would have to live in the shadow of a huge building. There will be many objectors to this build because quite rightly they would ask you to consider the consequences of your decision. It is forever and should not be an eyesore that will be criticised in the future. Regards Sandra Watt | 01/02/2022 | Object |
| I am objecting to the proposed development on the grounds of its overall lack of suitability for the area : - The 18 storey structure will all but destroy the iconic view of the River Tyne and its design is not in keeping with the feel of the area. - The proposed car parking facilities are not fit for purpose and will add to more congestion. | 01/02/2022 | Object |
| Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to make clear my robust objections towards the planning application for the proposed development on Malmo Quay (REF: 2021/2404/01/EIA) As an Ouseburn resident I am aware that pieces of land in this area are high in value due to their location (I live in one of these places) – however in this circumstance the proposal is completely out of line with the surrounding area and has fundamental flaws regarding infrastructure and the detrimental affect that this development would cause to the area compared to the ones that have gone before it. My key concerns are stated below: · The proposal outlines plans to build 77 homes on an extremely small piece of a land – the infrastructure to get to this piece of land is already very poor – the roads are tight and following the development at Spillers Quay and the proposed construction on the Quay timber site congestion from traffic is already set to spiral with there already not enough parking spaces for those houses (An assumption that people that spend 300K+ on a new home will not drive a car is not factual). When the ‘Whey aye’ is built this will again massively increase the demands on this area – there is only a single road which is hard to get to and this is an area with high pedestrian footfall increasing the risk for people that are walking through the area and also to our children when they are out playing. · The proposal to build an 18 story tower block in a conservation area – The Ouseburn valley is an area that glistens with natural beauty, volunteers regular make sure that it is clean and clear of rubbish and it is a culture hub for the east end of town with a thriving hospitality sector and landmarks like the Ouseburn farm, seven stories and brilliant pubs, it is also curtailed by the bridges. The building of an 18 story tower block in this area will totally destroy the regeneration program and the natural beauty of the area. Newcastle is already littered with large buildings which were built in previous generations and that now linger on the landscape as eyesores – there is absolutely no reason to built this tower block other than to make money as it offers absolutely nothing to the area – The fact that housing England will need to spend £1,000,000+ just to make the land buildable stinks of corruption from the planning board – there are multiple places this money could be spend more effectively and where houses could be built straight away – this is tax payers money and it should not be spent like this. The Malings, Spillers and future Quay Timber developments have all been meticulously planned and look amazing, fitting in with the area, this has not been and will destroy the Ouseburn valley from all angles. It is totally out of keeping with the area and anyone that approves this needs to hang their head in shame. · The impact of building an 18 story tower block to residents and local business areas – This building will lead to reduced privacy in my home as well as loss of light – the building is not in keeping with any of the levels that are on the quayside close to this (approx 4 story’s) and does not fit in with the area. The development will also make local businesses less desirable – for example the Hotel Du vin – I would not want to go to a high end hotel that had what essentially looks like a council tower block built next to it. As well as for businesses this is also detrimental to the price of my house. Finally, I have a couple questions to raise based on the above points: 1) Have Newcastle City Council considered spending the 1 million+ pounds that they would need to use to change the area into a place of natural beauty with additional opportunities for new local businesses? | 02/02/2022 | Object |
| The site could house a park and new shops or restaurants for example and a 3 or 4 story block of flats, making the area more desirable (Igloo stated that the tower block would be a landmark for the East end of town which again is not a reality, this could be). 2) If this development was approved (I pray Newcastle City Council aren’t this corrupt but just in case they are) what work to improve the local infrastructure would be proposed to stop an increase in traffic in the area, risk to pedestrians and subsequent lack of parking? 3) Where have the council come to the conclusion that people no longer have cars or are reducing car ownership? I would like to see some evidence of this as to add the risk of this potential increase to the parking footprint in an extremely condensed area is not acceptable (Igloo said in open day that people would get the bus or if they had a car they would park in the town centre?.................). 4) Who came up with the notion that an 18 story tower block in a conservation area could be a landmark for the east end of the city? Was this done via panelling local residents? Or is this an idea formed by an individual looking to profit from this. I hope you will consider these points and those raised by others when reviewing this application, in a time when all that we see is corruption on the television from our government and councils, if the plans are to go ahead as they are its pretty evident that the planning board operate in a similar vain, there is absolutely no reason why these plans should go ahead in their current form – it is purely for money and the fact that Homes England has to invest first to actually build this for me is the hardest part to stomach. I am sure a more suitable and beneficial development for the area could be found for this piece of land which would not be so objectionable and that would be a real landmark that our city could be proud of. Yours Sincerely, | ||
| Although I live in Wallsend, I work and spent leisure time by the River Tyne. There’s a sense of pride and belonging when viewing our river and it’s six bridges. A familiar picture etched on minds, it’s recognised world wide. How will you explain this hideous, towering monolithic building to future generations of Geordies? How do you validate crushing established businesses and loyal patronage? There is absolutely no benefit for the area. The developer’s sole purpose is to create an investment; a purely selfish act and certainly not worthy of a place along our historic Tyne. | 02/02/2022 | Object |
| The proposed development is completely inappropriate. There is insufficient parking for the properties which are being built. The height of the building is completely out of keeping with the skyline of the river and the surrounding areas. There is very little demand for properties of this nature as seen by the stagnant prices of flats in Newcastle city centre, Quayside and Gateshead over the last 15 years. The Ouseburn area and Quayside have developed their own identities and plonking a giant block of flats in the middle will destroy a lot of that character. | 02/02/2022 | Object |
| I am writing to note my objection to the proposed development of Malmo Quay. As a resident of the Ouseburn ward and someone who takes much pride in the community here, I feel that an 18 storey tower block is not only inappropriate but brings only detriment to such a creative, environmentally conscious and community driven area. My main concerns are the loss of green space close to the waterside, potentially encroaching upon current and/or futures river biodiversity and privatisation of the quayside – a hugely important part of our city’s identity. This land has such opportunity to serve residents and visitors alike in the form of a public park, free outdoor family meeting places or educational facilities representing the Quayside’s rich history and culture. This proposal takes none of this into consideration and instead presents further problems, more cars and congestion and an unsightly structure forever altering an iconic view from the Free Trade Inn. The building itself is disproportionate in size and situation compared to surrounding area and will also block daylight across nearby homes and businesses. Scrap it, instead plant trees and create ponds free and accessible for all. | 02/02/2022 | Object |
| I am writing to note my objection to the proposed development of Malmo Quay. As a resident of the Ouseburn ward and someone who takes much pride in the community here, I feel that an 18 storey tower block is not only inappropriate but brings only detriment to such a creative, environmentally conscious and community driven area. My main concerns are the loss of green space close to the waterside, potentially encroaching upon current and/or futures river biodiversity and privatisation of the quayside – a hugely important part of our city’s identity. This land has such opportunity to serve residents and visitors alike in the form of a public park, free outdoor family meeting places or educational facilities representing the Quayside’s rich history and culture. This proposal takes none of this into consideration and instead presents further problems, more cars and congestion and an unsightly structure forever altering an iconic view from the Free Trade Inn. The building itself is disproportionate in size and situation compared to surrounding area and will also block daylight across nearby homes and businesses. Scrap it, instead plant trees and create ponds free and accessible for all. | 02/02/2022 | Object |
| I am writing to object to elements of this planning application. While I am in favour of development at this site as the quayside should provide housing opportunities for those who want to live there, I don't feel the proposed 18 storey accommodation is suitable. The proposed site is in an attractive location at the edge of the River Tyne where the Ouse Burn runs into the river. Building a residential tower of this height doesn't fit in with the surrounding architecture and would create a dominant feature of the landscape but without the characteristics of more iconic buildings including the Baltic or Sage, which are public buildings. I appreciate the builders stated concern that the affordability of their scheme depends on creating sufficient volume of housing however that is not a valid reason for the proposed height of this tower block. There is insufficient parking proposed in the application for the site as a whole. I note that additional parking may be created in a future phase however this will not be in time to prevent congestion issues in a location which already struggles to provide enough parking for residents and visitors. While the proposed building materials of the tower block may match some of the nearby properties, by scaling up to 18 storeys the materials proposed start to look rather drab and out of keeping with the natural light and beauty of the area. | 02/02/2022 | Object |
| I wish to object strongly to this application with particular mention of the 18 story tower block. The unique Ouseburn area is a heritage destination with many buildings of historical interest and newer ones, some with reasonable scale and architectural merit. The proposed tower does not sit comfortably within this setting, it's mass dominates the whole area and it is of little architectural merit. There is no indication from the artists impressions of how it will dominate the area when viewed from within the Ouseburn as it looms over the Toffee Factory. There is some logic in building three story housing on this brownfield site which would be of a similar height to the existing fairly recent developments. With the addition of the new building on the Quay Timber site and the recent completion of the new building on the site of the old cattle quarantine, there is already a lot of new accommodation in the area which will present significant parking problems as it is. With this new Malmo proposal the parking suggested is totally inadequate not to mention lack of charging points as EVs become the norm. The tower block when viewed from the Sage or Baltic or indeed the new arena/conference centre will look completely out of place looking east along the river. One might conclude that the developer has put in a ridiculous application so that they can reduce the tower a few stories to get what they actually want. In fact nothing over three stories will work. If the City wants to send a green message then this site at the mouth of the Ouseburn might be better served with a well designed green space, planted with a selection of interesting trees which would become a destination end point for walkers, joggers or cyclists along the Quayside. | 02/02/2022 | Object |
| As local residents of 7 years, we are writing to object to the proposed Malmo Quay development, particularly to the proposed tower block. The sheer size and stature of the tower block would overwhelm the area, both aesthetically and practically. It will overshadow the current residential flats along the quayside and the developing residential area along the Ouseburn river (Steenbergs Yard and The Malings). It will tower over office buildings like the Toffee Factory and Newcastle Enterprise Centre. It will have a negative impact on other businesses such as The Tyne Bar, Free Trade Inn, Di Meo’s and Northern Rye. It will also impact on local listed buildings such as Sailor’s Bethel on Horatio Street. All of these (and many more) buildings will suffer from loss of natural light and decrease in privacy due to the size of the tower block. The look of the tower is completely out of place compared to the other buildings in the area. All new developments have been designed to fit in with the landscape of the area, and this design and plan goes blatantly away from this. Why anyone would think a huge, beige, cheap looking building could be in keeping with what is currently along the quayside and in the Ouseburn is baffling. The area already struggles from a lack of parking for the current residents of the flats on the quayside. Many people have to park their cars on both sides of the road due to the lack of spaces. This development will only increase the strain on the area causing an increase in traffic rendering a much less safe area for walking, runners and cyclists. Not to mention the environmental impact on the area (noise and air pollution). The Q3 bus no longer directly services the quayside and this site is not close enough to a Metro to encourage the use of public transport. The site will also have a negative impact on National Cycle Route 72 (Hadrian’s Cycle Way), which is part of the coast to coast route used by thousands of cyclists and walkers every year. The developers have stated that they need the tower to make their project financially viable. We don’t believe this to be an adequate reason for the area to be burdened with a monstrous tower block, that has clearly been an after-thought and been given minimal thought and consideration to local residents, workers and regular visitors to the area. The Ouseburn is a cultural hub and a thriving close-knit community and has built a reputation internationally as a place to visit. This development will do nothing to enhance that reputation and puts the area’s integrity at risk. Emily & James Keeling. | 02/02/2022 | Object |
| I have no problem with developing the site with some more housing etc as it is a desireable area which is currently underutilized, however I have to object to a huge tower block being built as it truly would be a terrible eyesore. | 02/02/2022 | Object |
| I wish to object to the planning application and believe that the development, particularly the tower block, would detract from the character and appearance of the Lower Ouseburn Valley Conservation Area (including the listed buildings therein), which lies directly adjacent to the site. The Lower Ouseburn Valley Conservation Area is a regional and national example of heritage-based regeneration. The strong industrial and social heritage of the area is apparent in its dramatic setting, historic industrial remnants and contrasting open spaces, its position close to the Quayside, and is the best surviving example of the industrialised tributary streams of the Tyne. An eighteen storey tower block would be unsympathetic and have a negative impact upon the setting and overall character of the area. There are no other buildings on this side of the Quayside that are of this height. It would dominate not only the Ouseburn but the Quayside and is inappropriate for such a prominent location. The potential impact of developments upon this site is highlighted in the Lower Ouseburn Valley Conservation Area Management Plan. On page 53 reference is made to development on the last remaining plot on the East Quayside, fronting the mouth of the River Ouseburn and the River Tyne: ‘Development on these sites will have an impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area although this will largely be restricted to views into and out of the Valley. Development in such locations will also have an immediate impact on the setting of the conservation area and those listed buildings which are located towards the edges of the conservation area boundary. Particular issues are scale and mass, and how the various developments sit within the context of their immediate setting and equally importantly, the wider context of the character and appearance of the Valley.’ The Management Plan makes further reference to views on page 88: ‘New development must respect existing key views into and out of the Valley. Where possible new development should enhance existing views.’ The development would also impact upon the Ouseburn as a cultural quarter and creative community. On page 50 the Management Plan draws attention to the increase in interest and investment within the Ouseburn. This poses a threat to existing businesses and a barrier to new businesses, who are either being driven out of or are unable to move into the area. Higher value uses could pose a threat to arts and cultural uses, and thereby mixed use. The area would become gentrified, pushing out artists and potentially decimating the important cultural industries that are currently thriving. These often independent businesses and creative centres add vibrancy to the area and city as a whole. The proposal does not include any affordable homes. Instead the properties will be 100% market rate. There are also issues with transport. The development would increase traffic within the area but the submitted plans for Malmo Quay appear to only show 18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block. This is totally inadequate, will place even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and create potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. On page 18 of the Lower Ouseburn Valley Character Statement reference is made to current problems with parking: ‘In addition, the existing uses within the valley attract a reasonable amount of traffic, which, due to the narrow roads and lack of car parking encourages on road parking. Further development in the conservation area is likely to increase the traffic flow through the valley and this should be handled sensitively to avoid further damage to the nature of the conservation area. Ideally, a comprehensive view of traffic management should be taken to avoid piecemeal solutions, which may cumulatively detract from the character of the conservation area.’ It is also evident on page 49 of the Management Plan: ‘Parking is generally perceived to be a problem in the Lower Ouseburn Valley. There is some designated parking provision under the arches of Byker Bridge on Lime Street and a number of properties have on-site parking such as Foundry Lane Industrial Estate and Steenberg’s Warehouse, Lime Street. The lack of designated off street parking within the Valley has led to Lime Street in particular being used for on road parking. This has a direct impact on the appearance of the conservation area and affects both the setting of historic buildings and important vistas through the Valley.’ Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometer away. The development, particularly the 18 storey tower block would have an irreversible overall impact upon the sense of identity and place of the Ouseburn. This would threaten the heritage and mixed use of the area, leading to loss of character. Transportation needs have not been adequately addressed. The design and scale of the development is inappropriate, and detrimental to the character and appearance of the conservation area. | 02/02/2022 | Object |
| Scale of building - very out of place along much smaller buildings. Blocking daylight, sunlight, and just generally causing overshadowing for both other residents and those that use Quayside. New build very out of keeping with historic industrial architecture of area - Liverpool lost it’s UNESCO status due to so many new builds. Loss of privacy to surrounding apartment buildings. Congestion due to cars of residents of Malmo Quay may potentially pollute the river, the local area,and may impact wildlife, including Kittiwakes, and animals at the Ouseburn farm. Will make a popular pedestrian/cyclist area more dangerous, due to the sheer amount of vehicles. Potential of noise pollution from Malmo Quay to other residents in surrounding buildings. Also consider that local businesses rely on not having sound restrictions, e.g. live music at The Tyne Bar. Building the block will have a significant impact on local residents, local businesses, wildlife, may lead to pollution of the river, and may disrupt the Ouseburn farm animals. Loss of view Loss of public amenity - used for cycling/walking - should be made into a green space. | 02/02/2022 | Object |
| I am objecting on several grounds: 1.The size of the proposed tower block is not in keeping with the local aesthetic. It is too tall to be in keeping with local buildings and environment with significant risk of overshadowing. The design is also poor not adding to the historic area. 2. Safety- the malmo area has always felt safe to walk down the pedestrian and cycle routes due to the more open area. If a tower block is built with it's size and shadow it would make it a less safe area to visit and therefore likely impact on passing tourism / pedestrian traffic to the ouseburn,particularly women. 3. Removing / re- routing a cycle route and hub in these times when cycling is meant to be highlighted seems a backwards step. Also the tower block will likely need access roads / create more traffic from residents who are more likely to have cars ( as it is not close to a metro) thus creating a less safe area to cycle around on a popular route. | 02/02/2022 | Object |
| I agree that this site should be developed and I think the design of the town houses is tasteful. The use of the site to create space, walkways and amenities for foot fall and residents is well thought out. I understand that the plot is difficult to work with and that building a high rise is the logical answer to use the back corner of the plot. However I do not think the design is suitable in size for the area. The height is the biggest issue, it towers over and blocks the light of surrounding buildings and businesses of historic value such as Tyne Bar, Free Trade and The old Ouseburn school. The skyline would also look laughable with an anomaly at the edge of the city. My other objection is with the significant lack of parking. As a local resident, parking is already a struggle in the area at times due to other residents, gym goers and business patrons. Adding 60+ dwellings to this with only 18 spaces is frankly absurd. This will be a nuisance for the new and existing users of local parking amenities and will likely cause knock on effects of over crowded parking in other local areas such as Heaton. | 02/02/2022 | Object |
| The architectural style of the proposed developments is completely out of character with the Ouseburn itself. Looking toward the quayside buildings like the Sage have been created to compliment the curve of the Tyne itself and also to complement the curve of the Millennium bridge. The proposed layout also damages the landscape of the river. There should be no interference with the view of the river. I have no objection to a tower in this exact area but would ask that the design is reconsidered. I completely object to the buildings in front of the millennium bridge and the building in front of the Baltic flour mill. I cannot understand why the size of these proposed buildings is even entertained when they will hide buildings which are vital to our tourism. The view from the free trade Inn will also be destroyed. This view is famous and also important for tourism and the Ouseburn economy. I would be concerned that the free trade may lose out on trade as this is one of their main attractions. I'd also add that this continuing gentrification of the Ouseburn is damaging to its heritage. Also, why is affordable housing not a priority for this council? Why is there such a focus on housing development that will price ordinary people out of the area? | 02/02/2022 | Object |
| I wish to register a very strong objection to this application. It is completely out of proportion in terms of size appearance and density. It is out of keeping with the other developments in the area, and is only viable to the developer if the tower block is allowed. It looks like an an over the top application in a cynical attempt by the developer to get a tower block on the site, possibly less high. It should not have a tower block at all, not least because of the ridiculously small amount of parking spaces being allocated. The council should consider making this a destination green space for the many runners, walkers and cyclists who use the quayside, and refuse this hideous application in order to preserve the unique nature of the Ouseburn quayside frontage. | 02/02/2022 | Object |
| An 18 storey building on the outskirts of town with no equivalent development in the surrounding area would be ridiculous. The heritage / history of the ouseburn and quayside must be protected. Whilst development in the area should be encouraged allowing a building of this size to dominate the landscape will take away from everything that is loved about the area. Traffic and parking is also a great concern. More needs to be done here to avoid significant congestion and over flow of cars parking in non designated areas. | 02/02/2022 | Object |
| I wish to register my strong objections to this proposed development. As a regular user of cultural and leisure businesses in the Ouseburn area, to which I cycle, my objections concern the impact that the Malmo Quay development would have on those businesses, on the unique cultural and historical environment of the Ouseburn Valley, and on the much-used National Cycle Network route. Ouseburn has become, for many people – residents and visitors - a treasured part of the City because of its combination of post-industrial history and architecture, its natural environment, and the cluster of cultural, artisan and independent leisure businesses located there. The many attractions of the area have clearly made it a viable place for development, but that development must be curated carefully to avoid destroying this thriving ecosystem of businesses and attractions. The proposed tower at Malmo Quay will do irreparable damage to this ecosystem. Aesthetically, it is of no architectural merit and is totally out of scale and keeping with the local environment. It will undermine Ouseburn as a place of heritage, as well as nature and craft. It would be an act of permanent architectural and cultural vandalism to approve it. The parking space allocation proposed is wholly inadequate for the number of residents the building would house, causing inevitable obstructions to the roads and cycle routes along the Quayside, and making them more dangerous for all road users. If there is to be development on the Malmo Quay site, it should be at a scale that does not dominate or despoil the features of the Ouseburn that so many people love. It should connect architecturally and aesthetically with the heritage and nature of the area, and indeed, add to those. And it should not undermine the focus on encouraging cycling and walking by endangering the most vulnerable road users with unnecessary obstructions. The site requires an imaginative, creative and sympathetic development, rather than an outdated, lowest common denominator tower block. | 03/02/2022 | Object |
| Air quality The latest quality annual status report published in June 2021 found that the main pollutant of concern is nitrogen dioxide (NO2) with the largest contributions being from road vehicles. It is unclear how the current proposed development is in keeping with the low emission zone element of the Urban Core Area Action Plan given that the proposed site is not serviced by any bus routes and the nearest metro stations both being up steep gradients. The gradients will mean those with limited or impaired mobility will struggle to reach these stations, and without adequate access to public transport for those whose mobility is not impaired it is reasonable to presume that the majority of prospective tenants will be relying on cars to commute to a workplace and/or move around the area. This could lead to significant decreases in the air quality in and around the Ouseburn Valley, as well as the surrounding Quayside which is largely used by the general public. Rising traffic volumes and associated traffic congestion was a key sustainability issue outlined in the May 2020 report by Newcastle Council. Given the above points it is unclear how the proposed development is aiding the resolve of this issue or how it will mitigate it. Additionally, the development has submitted plans for 18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartment tower block. This is woefully inadequate and will lead to rising pressures on already over-crowded local on-street parking. In turn, this may pose significant dangers to the national cycle route, a key aspect of the council’s strategy to reduce air pollution. Housing As identified in the Sustainability Appraisal Post-Adoption statement published in May 2020, a “shortage of affordable housing of an appropriate standard” is one of the key sustainability issues affecting Newcastle. Research by the New Economics Foundation, published in December 2021, showed that 5% of houses built in Newcastle between 2019-20 were affordable housing with an estimated 0% due to be built should building costs rise the projected 20%. This is a deepening crisis that will have severe long-term consequences on the whole of Newcastle. The proposed development plans reflect more land grabs by private property developers who’s benefactors will be limited to a handful of individuals at the detriment of the surrounding communities and local residents. As well as the 5710 households currently awaiting social housing in Newcastle. The proposal appears to be prioritizing profit of private developers over the needs of the local community (residents and businesses) and environment. The first planning obligation laid out in the Supplementary Planning Document is Affordable Housing. This specifies that any builds with 15 units or more must have 20% of such units reserved for affordable rented housing with the provision secured on site. The current proposals make no mention of affordable housing being provided across the development for Newcastle and it’s residents. This development risks entrenching inaccessibility to affordable housing whilst doing nothing to contribute toward solutions to the problem. Access to open spaces Another sustainability issue outlined in the aforementioned report is a “lack of access to and quality of open spaces”. The proposed development sits on an unused site that presents a wonderful opportunity to be developed into an open space that can be enjoyed by all of Newcastle’s resident rather than a limited number who will be able to afford these luxury properties, an ongoing issue within the wider context of the gentrification of the Ouseburn Valley. The proposed development is completely out of keeping with the surrounding areas of Byker and Walker that are suffering from poor housing and underfunding of public services. Refurbishing the unused space into a space that services and enhances the local community would increase general wellbeing of local residents. Given that Newcastle has one of the highest rates of destitution in the UK (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2020) this could provide many more opportunities to uplift and empower local communities than the proposed development which is likely to ostracise them through gentrification. Listed Buildings There are currently 12 listed buildings within the Valley’s conservation area, 8 of which are grade II. Historic England states such buildings are of “special interest warranting every effort to preserve them”. A key aspect in maintaining and preserving such buildings is, by default, preservation of the character and history of the surrounding build area – Para 127 (c) of the National Planning Policy Framework reinforces this point by stipulating that developments must be “sympathetic to local character and history”. It is unclear how the proposed 18-storey tower block meets this requirement with its placement far above the Valley’s skyline, or how it adds to the historic value of the Valley. This may lead to a decrease in the overall historic value and surrounding listed buildings. Additionally, Para 130 of the NPPF states “planning should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an areas and the way it functions”. The current proposal appears to do little in the way of improving the quality of the area beyond providing housing on an unused site that could be put to better use as a communal space for local residents. Para 14.87 of the Urban Core Policies document states that the strategy will seek to “maintain local distinctiveness” whilst protecting and enhancing the historic and natural environments. It is unclear how an 18-storey beige tower block is congruent with the Valley’s industrial heritage or distinctiveness, or how it will contribute to the conservation of this rich historic Valley. The build will dominate the sky line and its proposed position is inappropriate and unwelcome by the local community. Policy UC13 “Respecting and Managing Views Within, From and Into the Urban Core” dictates the views that must be respected when considering developments include those “of designated heritage assets, other distinctive landmark buildings and structures”. The proposed tower block will not only obstruct the view of the Ouseburn Valley – a valued heritage asset of Newcastle, but will also potentially block the view of the Tyne and Millennium bridge from certain areas of the Valley – a key reason many visitors venture down the Valley which may inadvertently have a negative impact on the local economy. The block may possibility obstruct views of the Toffee Factory from the Gateshead side of the Quay which would be detract from the overall industrial heritage of the Valley given the factories grade listing and the integral part it has played in the Valleys history. The integrity of the views of the listed Ouseburn School may also be at risk by the tower block. The proposed development does not appear to have been “especially sensitive” to the historic context of the Valley as stipulated in Para 14.99 of the Urban Core Policies document. Given that the original Malings development was refused twice on the grounds of “insensitive and poor quality design”, it is absurd to accept a proposal that will see an 18-storey beige tower block dominate the Valleys sky line. | 03/02/2022 | Object |
| Dear Jill, I have been a resident of the East End of Newcastle for twelve years, a resident of Byker specifically for seven. In this time, I have seen marked improvements in the quality of life in my area, stemming from community-driven initiatives as well as the proliferation of local businesses which have contributed significantly to the area's reputation for excellence in culture, food, and nightlife. Simultaneously, however, I have seen stagnation and even deterioration in certain parts of the city where large developments - chiefly luxury residences and student accommodation blocks - have materialised, offering little of value to the people of Newcastle at large. What the proposed block on the site of Malmo Quay represents to me is a jeopardising of Ouseburn's vibrancy for the sake of a development that is absolutely and objectively incompatible with the public spirit and even the prevailing appearance of the area. In particular, what we do not need is: * pressure on nearby local businesses such as independent pubs and live music venues which have done so much to make Newcastle the unique destination it has become - this is not a trivial point; please note that 'ensuring the vitality of town centres' is detailed as a vital consideration in the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government's National Planning Policy Framework * a large building that, for many, will damage the quite palpable geniality of the area's appearance - one only needs to regard the manner in which Liverpool lost its hard-won and valuable UNESCO world heritage status as a result of the area's plethora of dubious developments to know that this is not a mistake that should be repeated elsewhere (refer to the National Planning Policy Framework's points on 'conserving and enhancing the historic environment') * inevitable disruption to a widely-used and much-loved part of the national cycle route network due to increases in vehicular traffic and pollution * a furthering of the overabundance of housing options that are unaffordable for the overwhelming majority of the city's population - social inequality is very real, and an eighteen-storey trophy for those who do not feel the sharp end of our region's situation would be an obscenity. The East End of Newcastle is our home and we are justified in our fierce pride in it. As such, the proposed development in Ouseburn would feel like something of an injury to so many of us. Thank you for reading my objection. | 03/02/2022 | Object |
| View is ruined by the block of flats. It would be an isore. | 03/02/2022 | Object |
| Would ruin the area and views destroying the culture of the ouseburn area | 03/02/2022 | Object |
| I live very close to this development and in principle I’d like to see the site used but the tower block is completely out of proportion with the rest of the surrounding area. The tower block design is very unattractive and ruins an iconic view from the free trade inn. Would it not be advisable to but a larger development on the Spillers Quay site and less on the Malmo? There also isn’t sufficient parking in this proposal. | 04/02/2022 | Object |
| This development is an eyesore - neither the tower nor the other architecture are anywhere close to being in line with the surrounding area, and also happen to be incredibly ugly | 04/02/2022 | Object |
| Eyesore - the development is unlike anything else in the area and is ugly | 04/02/2022 | Object |
| It would be an eyesore in the quayside, it doesn’t fit in and will dominate the landscape! Tourists come to see the Tyne bridge and it’s stunning setting! | 04/02/2022 | Object |
| I strongly object to these plans. The proposed tower would significantly alter the look of the area and stick out like a sore thumb. Additionally, the views from the Free Trade Inn would be ruined, a place enjoyed by many people. Please consider the value of the area and the opinions of those who enjoy it, rather than building another lifeless developement for the sake of it! | 04/02/2022 | Object |
| I’d like to strongly object to the development of Malmo Quay. The building is classed as Ouseburn, however is neither in keeping with the landscape of Ouseburn or the quayside. The size and appearance of the building will not fit in with the area and the layout suggested means that the area will become densely populated causing safety issues, noise pollution and disturbance to existing residence. I like I Mariners Wharf so a tower block will dramatically overshadow our building causing loss of sunlight and loss of privacy. Our balcony will be overlooked by the building which is not what we signed up for when buying the property. Parking, access and bottle necked traffic is already an issue at busy times on the day in this area. Adding a huge number of residents will only exasperate the problem and cause a danger to pedestrians. There is not enough road access to the suggested location to warrant the erecting of this tower and with development already in the works further down the quayside past The Hub there is no way any more people will be able to comfortably live in the suggested area. Not only would noise and disturbance from new residents in an 18 storey block be completely damaging to the area, but the noise we would have to deal with while building works are going on would be catastrophic! Me and my partner both work from home full time and could not complete our daily work with noisy machinery and a building site right outside the door. You also need to take into consideration the dust and building works that could be damaging to our health and property. My car is parked directly next to the proposed building site in a private parking space as well as other vehicles, which means we would expect no dust or derby anywhere near our property. As mentioned air quality and odours could negatively affect our health and as a resident who already suffers with asthma it would be unacceptable to have to live in those conditions. I am also hugely concerned about community safety as this would encourage more residents to this area and therefore a higher risk of crime, especially theft. We have vehicles parked outside which would be less safe with vandalism and theft increasing as this always happens in a built up area. our homes would also be at a higher risk for theft. Crime prevention would have to be hugely increased in the area if the property development were to go ahead and with limited public services as it is this realistically would not be put in place. | 04/02/2022 | Object |
| I strongly oppose the development. There are many obvious reasons why this development has no place on the quayside, and I am surprised how anyone can see the merits in this building. It would be completely obtrusive to the surrounding architecture and adds nothing of aesthetic value. The design looks clunky and uninspiring. This is an area of great historical merit, and additions to developments along this stretch should be sympathetic to the industrial buildings that bring so much character – not dominate and overshadow it. Visitors are attracted to cities because of their unique character, and it is highly important we as a city make the most of our the special points of interest we have to offer. I also do not see how it will be possible to deal with 62 apartments worth of cars, with only 18 spaces, with also very limited access to public transport here – it is completely impractical. This would be a huge mistake of NCC if they allow this monstrous development to be built. | 04/02/2022 | Object |
| I write to share my concerns about the 18 storey tower block that is planned for the quayside. There is already plentiful residential accommodation in the area and the accommodation is all in keeping with the design of the local area. An 18 storey tower block would have a negative impact on the aesthetics of the area. The quayside is an iconic tourist attraction of Newcastle and the 18 storey eyesore will not enhance and in fact be of a significant detriment to the area. The area is beautiful and other local buildings fit in with the style of the area, whereas this project will stand out like a sore thumb. Other local developments have improved the area, bringing with them employment and tourism. I feel that this development’s only purpose is to make money for the developers. | 04/02/2022 | Object |
| This proposal will cause many problems for people who live and work in the area. The Malmo Quay area needs good access routes, this development will create problems for essential services, vehicles needing access to service and support people who live at Mariners Wharf - there is regularly congestion with the vehicles that currently need to access Mariners Wharf - i.e. residents, visitors (so additional vehicles will add to the problem). The development on Spillers Quay also does not provide adequate parking provision, this will lead to major problems on St. Lawrence Rd., Walker Road, Albion Row and Ford Street. To avoid problems there needs to be more provision for resident parking/visitor parking/service parking and delivery spaces and there needs to be a reduction on the number of homes/dwellings. As it currently stands, this proposal will have a detrimental effect on local residents and businesses. | 04/02/2022 | Object |
| I have serious concerns regarding the proposed development, particularly in respect of the 18 storey block. My worry is that the development will have very serious implications for the views and access to light for the existing properties in the area. Equally, the other proposed developments in Ouseburn and the surrounding areas have the potential to vastly increase the number of visitors and tourists to the area. This development is likely to deter visitors as it will have a negative impact on the area and its skyline. | 04/02/2022 | Object |
| I wish to object to this proposal The development is not fitting for the area. The proposal for an 18 storey tower block is not in keeping with existing developments on either the Quayside or Ouseburn areas. Such a building would be overbearing and an eyesore in an area of the city with much heritage and history. It would be the tallest building in the area There are few amenities such as shops etc nearby, within walking distance which will increase car use Public transport links are very limited in the area, this in turn increases the need for car parking and puts strain on local roads. There are no bus services on the lower Quayside (these were moved a few years ago). There is only one bus service, the Q3, from City Road which can only be reached by a relatively long roundabout walk (>5 mins) and up a steep hill. Contrary to information provided in this application, the bus stop for travel into the city, does not have a shelter and it does not have seating; additionally the Q3 bus service operates a half-hourly service during the evenings. It has been cut to this over the years from a 10 minute frequency when it was originally introduced. The Q3 route also engages with the lower Quayside near the Tyne Bridge and is therefore subject to traffic congestion at certain times of day meaning services are sometimes unreliable. A 15 minutes service is not frequent enough to encourage bus use over private cars. The transport statement does not take into consideration the steep uphill walk to ‘nearby’ metro stations or bus stops. In fact it is probably quicker and easier to walk into the city centre than to walk to Byker and catch a Metro into the city centre The area is not fit to support such a large increase in population along with associated car ownership and public transport requirements. Significant infrastructure improvements are needed to justify an increased population There is already a pollution problem in the city and a clean air zone is due to be introduced in June 2022, the boundary nearby the proposed development. Increased car use will result in increased pollution and this may contribute to a future need to extend the CAZ or tighten restrictions Increased traffic will result in increased pollution, congestion and accidents. While the accident rate my seem low, as a resident of City Road, I note that there are frequent accidents and near-misses at the various junctions in the area. In particular the junction with Cut Bank and City Road. The crash mat website does not seem to truly represent the problem Increased traffic will, even in a slow speed environment, make the area less pleasant, especially for cyclists Increased traffic will damage historic road surfaces like the cobbled Horatio Street | 04/02/2022 | Object |
| This application at 18 stories high is way out of scale to the existing built landscape by the river and will dramatically alter the world famous view of the River Tyne from the historic Free Trade Inn. There is neither precedent or valid justification put forward for the outsized scale of this development, its light impact on neighbouring properties, and the bespoiling of the river scene for local inhabitants. Approval of this oversized tower block will also be a gateway for further high-rise development which will detriment the riverscape and spoil the views of the city forever. I strongly object to this application. | 04/02/2022 | Object |
| Dear Sir/Madame, I would like to echo the points raised by other objectors to the scheme. I agree with almost all negatives that others have mentioned in particular: - Brutal and poor quality design of a large tower block whilst adding little value to a popular Newcastle walking spot. Specifically, it’s effect over the views of the Tyne bridge is very severe. The question I ask myself is: “Has the designer ever left the South East of England?” - Wasted a valuable opportunity for a development which would play to the areas strengths and increase the utility to local business and visitors. All in all, a double negative for the area should the tower block go ahead. | 04/02/2022 | Object |
| Dear Sir/Madame, I would like to echo the points raised by other objectors to the scheme. I agree with almost all negatives that others have mentioned in particular: - Brutal and poor quality design of a large tower block whilst adding little value to a popular Newcastle walking spot. Specifically, it’s effect over the views of the Tyne bridge is very severe. The question I ask myself is: “Has the designer ever left the South East of England?” - Wasted a valuable opportunity for a development which would play to the areas strengths and increase the utility to local business and visitors. All in all, a double negative for the area should the tower block go ahead. | 04/02/2022 | Object |
| I would like to submit my objection to the proposed planning application (2021/2404/01/EIA) for the residential block of 18 storeys at Malmo Quay. My objection is based on the following reasons: It's not sympathetic to the local environment or surrounding historical buildings. The tower would dominate the skyline, looming over everything else in the area. The shadow it will cast will result in a pronounced loss of daylight felt across the locality. Furthermore, this development does not address the need or help those who are looking for affordable housing in Newcastle upon Tyne. There appears to be little to no consideration of the impacts that will result as a lack of provided parking spaces within the Malmo Quay development. 18 spaces for 62 apartments is woefully inadequate. Local transport links are poor in the area, with the closest metro stops and all bus services bar one over a 1 kilometre walk away up a steep bank. The extra traffic that this proposal will bring will have a significant impact on the already considerable demand for on-street parking in the Ouseburn area, especially at the weekend. This has worrying consequences for cyclists and families using the coast to coast cycle route. I'm concerned about the environmental impacts of this proposal, both in the short term during building work and the long term due to the increase of sustained human activity, traffic and pollution (including light and noise) in the area. The Tyne is home to many animals, including birds of environmental concern such as the curlew and kittiwake. Mammals such as otters and seals also live and feed in the river. The Ouseburn is a special place, home to independent pubs, music venues, small businesses and artists’ studios. This fragile community must be respected and taken into account, as they are what make this part of Newcastle so vibrant and well loved. The Ouseburn is quickly becoming swamped with residential properties and this continuation will kill the culture and atmosphere of the place. The increasing number of residential buildings is beginning to have a detrimental impact on the activities that happen here, for instance, live music already being restricted in some venues. The Ouseburn and Quayside are much loved areas of Newcastle which are hugely important to local people. This was demonstrably illustrated throughout the pandemic, when they gave families somewhere outdoors to both exercise and socialise safely. To implement this building plan will be a terrible loss for both the local businesses and all those who treasure this part of our city. | 05/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to the planning proposal for new development on the north west corner of the Malmo Quay for 3 main reasons: Firstly, the Ouseburn and wider quayside area is enhanced by historic and listed buildings that reflect the industrial past of the River Tyne and it’s environs. The area is home to several listed buildings and heritage assets, including the Grade 2 listed Ouseburn School, Sailors Bethal, Toffee Factory and the Tyne Bar and Free Trade Public Houses. The new development would not fit in this environment, both in terms of in it’s modern characteristics and because it would detract from what is an area of the city with a distinctive history and feel. Secondly, the Ouseburn is also a cultural hub, with fantastic creative businesses such as the Cluny, the Toffee Factory, Seven Stories, Chilli Studios, Biscuit Factory, Star and Shadow, Cobalt Studios Polestar Recording Studio, Ouseburn Farm and Hoult’s Yard. There are also a number of their historic pubs in the area, including the Cumberland Arms, Free Trade and Tyne Bar. The new development is predominantly for residential purposes and would not add to the cultural heritage and current creative environment. Finally, the new development, in particular the tower, would cast excessive shadow in the neighbourhood and block a significant amount of sunlight for local residents and business such as the Tyne Bar and Free Trade. I trust that the above points will be considered when deciding on this application. Carl R Taylor B.A. | 05/02/2022 | Object |
| The development of Malmö quay will have a significant impact on the views of the quayside and will desecrate the iconic scenery which the people of the northeast hold dear. The quayside is already heavily developed and further development will only further tarnish the experience for tourists and locals alike. I hope this development is reconsidered and the area can be protected from further developments of this type. | 05/02/2022 | Object |
| Having lived in Newcastle for one 10 years it has been great to witness the redevelopment of the Ouseburn area. The new residential blocks and student halls have made more businesses viable in the area and it is now a thriving jewel in Newcastle's crown and I look forward to seeing how this area develops in the future. That said, the proposals for Malmo Quay are completely out of character for the area. The proposed tower block is nearly three times the size of the surrounding buildings which will lead to much of Ouseburn being cast in to shadow in the summer months and a loss of the sense that ouseburn is a small settlement at the end of the Ouseburn. Newcastle's quayside skyline is instantly recognisable and internationally renown. The design for this 18 story monolithic brown tower block does not fit in with such architectural icons as the sage, the tyne bridge and the millennium bridge. I recognise that the land should be developed but it should be a development which is smaller and more in keeping with the local area. | 05/02/2022 | Object |
| I am specifically objecting to the construction of the 18 storey residential block. I do not believe that the block is in keeping with the topography of the area - it is inappropriately tall and will adversely affect the historical character of the area, which includes several listed buildings. It will block sunlight, having a significant adverse affect on local residents and on local businesses such as the Tyne Bar and Free Trade Inn. There is limited access to public transport for residents within the tower, with no bus or metro access without climbing a steep hill. | 05/02/2022 | Object |
| I am wishing to make an objection to the proposed development on the Malmo Quay. This development is one that would have a drastic effect on this part of the Quayside and Ouseburn, for several reasons. The building of an 18 storey block of flats, is completely out of keeping with the height of all the building around it and virtually the whole of the Quayside. The building of flats on land to the east of the Free Trades has already been revised, due to concerns about its height and this would dwarf that. The main reason for this block of flats seems to be concerns about the financial viability of the scheme without it. The development manager of Igloo, Alec Hamil has said" that due to a litany of constraints, due to sewage and other infrastructures, making it expensive to develop, the more we looked at the site, the more difficult it gets" So would that justify in any future building project, that if it is getting too costly, you simply put an 18 storey block of flats in it to make it viable? Parking has also always been an issue on other applications and again there is no provision for parking for 62 apartments and 13 town houses. Clearly lots of those residents will have cars, due to the poor provision of public transport in the area and there are further plans for housing on Spillers Wharf and the loss of the existing parking site. The development behind the Free Trades, plans to have some undercroft parking, but again woefully short of the amount needed for 50 flats and there is quite simply not enough parking spaces already for this increasingly over developed area. The development over all, is very uninspiring and seems to offer no benefits architecturally in the area, is inappropriate in it's size and will further add to the parking problems, which are developing in this part of the Quayside. The outline plans for Spillers Wharf, again looks to have many of the same issues, of buildings too high and no parking for a planned 73 dwellings. There really seems no need to develop a site which, has so many issues regarding any building on it and it could be used, for many other purposes, which could benefit the local community, when there seems to be an increasing loss of open spaces, with the proliferation of new developments. | 05/02/2022 | Object |
| This will ruin views of our stunning city from multiple spots north and south of the River | 05/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to this proposed development for the following reasons: - The size and appearance of the 18 storey residential block is overly large in scale and therefore inappropriate for the Malmo Quay site - The presence of an 18 storey residential block will undermine the quality and character of the existing landscape consisting of low and medium density residential and commercial buildings and architect of historical interest which contributes to the overall enjoyment for locals and visitors to the Ouseburn and Quayside area - The developer’s grounds for proposing such a large tower block, being that it is economically necessary because it is a difficult site, should not be a justification for approval. - The planning proposal fails to prove and demonstrate that an 18 storey block of flats is what the existing local community needs. - The provision for parking is inadequate and will add to problems with local on-street parking in the area - Problematic on-street parking will increase traffic generation, result in inadequate loading and turning space and effect highway safety in an area popular with pedestrians and cyclists - The 18 storey block will overshadow and harm the character and appearance of listed buildings within the surrounding area, including Sailors Bethal and the former Ouseburn School and other historical buildings with significant importance to the local community including the The Free Trade Inn, Toffee Factory, Tyne Bar and Glasshouse Bridge | 05/02/2022 | Object |
| I frequently cycle along the quayside. The section between the cycle hub and where Horatio Street joins the quayside is already difficult to navigate during busy times with the vehicles used by the apartments. The 18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block will almost certainly cause further problems in this area, with safety implications for pedestrians and cyclists. | 06/02/2022 | Object |
| I strongly object to the building plans for the 18 story tower. The Ouseburn is one of Newcastle's highlights and the quayside in particular is iconic. This development is not in keeping with the historic character of the surrounding buildings and would change the skyline of the area in a very detrimental way. While accepting that new houses are needed and it is beneficial to build on brown sites, the plans for a block of this kind cannot be supported. I could support the development of the area with smaller more suitable and sensitively designed buildings or public space, and if necessary plans were made to ensure the safety of pedestrians and cyclists, and adequate parking was provided for the new residents. None of these provisions can be seen within the current plans. | 06/02/2022 | Object |
| I wish to make it known that I object to the planned development of the Malmo quay towerblock. This proposed building is not in keeping with the surrounding area which I also believe is designated as a conservation zone. I also note that the building would potentially cause issues with the world famous views from the Free Trade PH and also the Tyne Bar. The local area is not particularly well served in terms of public transport, so it would be difficult for residents of the towerblock who need access to buses, metro etc would need to walk uphill some considerable distance, however even if it is assumed that each resident has access to a car, the provision of car parking is going to be inadequate and lead to dangerous levels of on street parking. I note with interest that another proposed development behind the Free Trade PH for a 6 storey high development, which would afford view down the river, will also be impacted by the tower block. In addition I do note that Newcastle City Council are about to demolish two of the large the tower blocks at Walker Shopping Centre, these have been in place since the 1960's and rightly have outstayed their usefulness, however it seems what Newcastle CC are proposing in the same area is a low rise development of mixed use (social housing and shops) which will be in better keeping with the area, it also make the point that the proposed towerblock at Malmo quay, is purely from the developers point of view, about selling apartments with views to make a profit. I would also add that given the awful consequences surrounding the Grenfell fire and building materials /cladding I am not convinced that the proposed structure will meet these standards, in addition as other points have been made access for emergency services is going to be severely hindered due to parking constraints, and even more so once the way eye wheel and associated developments around that are completed. I would also add to the fact that disruption during any intended construction works is going to be extensive in terms of noise pollution and potential pollution of the nearby river tyne, in addition the building and development will need to be supplied with relevant utility services, some of which may need additional service improvements, upgrades and diversionary works, which in turn will involve additional roadworks. I fully appreciate that NCC want to be seen to be forward thinking, but this just isn't the right place for this development. | 06/02/2022 | Object |
| The large building is not in keeping with the building around it and completely dominates the surrounding area. The area does need development but this is completely unsuitable. | 06/02/2022 | Object |
| To whom it may concern, I am writing to object to the Malmo and Spillers Quay proposal, reference number: 2021/2404/01/EIA. I am objecting as both a local resident and as an Architecture, Planning and Landscape academic at Newcastle University. The objections set out below are based on several contradictions to existing planning policy that relate to material conditions. Overbearing: The tower block proposed contradicts the Tall Buildings 2006 Supplementary Planning Document, Criterion 3, which states: “The perception of the scale of new tall buildings is an important key in integrating the new development into an established urban pattern and grain. New tall buildings should respond positively to surrounding building heights, depths, street frontages and provide an appropriate scale compatible with their surroundings.” The tower block is incompatible with the scale of all of the surrounding buildings and is in opposition with the current urban pattern. This will have an oppressive impact on the surrounding area and the existing housing near to the site. The proposed scale of the tower also contradicts Policy Q01 in the Local Plan, which states that promoting the development of the Ouseburn will be achieved by “Sustaining and enhancing the character of the area through the reuse of vacant historic buildings and by respecting the scale, plot sizes, topography and historic grain of the area.” Conservation Area or Listed Building: The tower block proposed contradicts the Tall Buildings 2006 Supplementary Planning Document, Criterion 3, which states: “In general new tall buildings should not be sited within conservation areas, nor should they visually impinge on the setting of/or important views of listed buildings or conservation areas.” The tower block will visually impinge on both the setting and views of the Lower Ouseburn Valley Conservation area, notably the Ouseburn School and Glasshouse Bridge. The proposal will have an adverse impact on the character, appearance of, and setting to this Conservation Area and the Listed Buildings within it. Igloo have proposed that the angled design of the tower will offset this significant harm and the magnitude of this change. This is unreasonable due to the scale of the tower and does not adequately address these concerns, nor their contradiction with existing policy. Out of Character: The proposal goes against the SPD Urban Design Framework for the Lower Ouseburn Valley section 3 which states: “The approach to regeneration in the Lower Ouseburn Valley will seek to enhance the existing character of the area…Larger structures and large development footprints should be avoided.” The proposal of a large tower contradicts this, and is not sensitive to the scale of the area. The SPD states the importance of sensitivity in scale as “this should ensure that existing structures and building elements that act as orientation points in the valley remain dominant in height.” “New development must also have regard to the wider setting of the Valley and the values placed on open space and views in to and out of the Valley.” The development will significantly alter the vantage point towards the river and bridges, out of the valley, from several points both within the valley and from the surrounding areas of Byker. This is one of the main reasons the Ouseburn is a desirable place to live, work, and spend leisure time. It will therefore have a negative impact on the economic sustainability of the area, particularly for potential new residents and businesses. As the Local Plan 2030 states, “The Quayside and Ouseburn Sub-Area contains distinctive vibrant areas defined by their historic legacies, topography and riverside location.” This proposal threatens the legacy of the Ouseburn outlined in policy and therefore the future of this historic area. Finally, I want to stress the importance of a contribution of Section 106 monies to support the development and sustainability of the Ouseburn. Whilst at a consultation meeting with Igloo, their staff stated that the profit margins may be “too small” to allow for any contribution of Section 106 funds. This is an unacceptable reason not to contribute money which could have a significant positive impact on the provision of community and social infrastructure. Yours Sincerely, Dr Clare Vaughan | 06/02/2022 | Object |
| To whom it may concern, I write to raise my serious concerns regarding the planning applications for Malmo and Spillers Quays. Firstly there is not sufficient infrastructure in the area to support a development of this size and I feel as though the application does not sufficiently address these concerns. There is clearly woefully inadequate parking in the plans for a residential structure of this size and there will be significant additional traffic congestion and noise pollution. Secondly the structure is completely out of keeping with the local area and its heritage and I feel it will be damaging to local businesses and attractions who have worked tirelessly over the years to redeveloped and preserve the history and heritage of Ouseburn. Some of Newcastles top visitor attractions, such as the Victoria Tunnel, are so popular due to the unique culture and history of the area and I believe this plan would significantly reduce the areas appeal. | 06/02/2022 | Object |
| Strong Objection. I strongly object to the proposed plan. The building is entirely out of character for the ouseburn valley and is an enormous monstrosity compared to the historic low rise industrial buildings of the valley. There are no other highrise buildings of similar stature in this area and it would look ridiculous. The ouseburn valley is a special historic area of newcastle. containing many of our most impressive architectural highlights, this is not the location for a high density, low design quality high rise building. This is one of the ugliest building designs I have ever witnessed and would be an embarrassment to our city. The area can not support such a high density development, the roads, public transport and parking infrastructure is simply not there and the parking planned as part of the development is woefully inadequate. These plans are entirely unacceptable to our community. | 06/02/2022 | Object |
| The proposed building is completely out of character with the surrounding area. It disrupts the already thriving area within ouseburn and makes no attempt to work with existing businesses in the area to use the space in a way that works for everyone. There is no affordable housing and the development will negatively impact pre-existing business and residents due to its inappropriate size and appearance. | 06/02/2022 | Object |
| I strongly object to these proposals. The area is of great value to residents and visitors alike and has historical and cultural significance. The proposed plans would significantly change both the landscape and the nature of the area. It would be an eyesore from every angle and would also block some valuable views of the quayside looking south. To allow this building to be built would be to tarnish some deep routed history and to damage some of the most beautiful and valuable views and landscapes that the city has to offer. | 06/02/2022 | |
| The scale of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for its location. I obviously understand that new houses are needed and agree that the best course is to build on brown sites but the plans for a building of this size and type is incongruous with the the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. The submitted plans for Malmo Quay appear to only show 18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block, woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route, which is a gem of the tourist industry of the north east. Any creation of dangerous traffic levels on the coast to coast route (which the proposed site is on) will drive money and footfall away from the Ouseburn and impact the profitability of the hospitality industry in the local area. Furthermore, public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. The lack of provision is indicative of the unsuitability of the proposed tower and a lack of forethought and consideration from the planners. | 06/02/2022 | Object |
| This building will absolutely spoil the aesthetic of the Ouseburn area. It is far too high and I understand will also not provide any affordable housing as part of the build. | 06/02/2022 | Object |
| I sincerely object to this project, the culture of this local and non gentrified community is so important and unique to this city and is something integral to the Newcastle community. | 06/02/2022 | Object |
| I am writing to object to this planning application for apartments and tower block known as Malmo Quay. I am a resident of Heaton and have worked at 36 Lime Street in the Ouseburn for 12 years. I have watched it develop rapidly over the past five years in terms of housing. I have also witnessed the greening of the valley and amazing wildlife moments. When I look at the digital plans for this development I am struck by how out of place it looks, especially with the tower looming out. The design does not appear to echo any of the beautiful features of our historical buildings and bridges that it sits beside. It looks boring and unimaginative. We are in the midst of a climate crisis. There are quite modern developments being demolished at great cost near to Manors metro, I cannot understand how this is happening in our current situation. It is my understanding that the construction industry is one of the most damaging in terms of environment, and my worry is we are building with very little thought for the future and very little care for the residents. This development does not appear to be addressing this crisis in terms of materials or design. I would also be very concerned that it does nothing to address a housing crisis, with, I suspect the unit prices being way above what a lot of us could afford. There is enough of this housing already built in the Ouseburn. I also think that car parking could be an issue. It is already under strain in the area with the new development on Ouse Street leading to cars parked regularly on the double yellow lines and onto the pavement, leading to inaccessibility for wheelchairs and pushchairs. I think we need to preserve more of our green spaces within the city and not fill them with elite housing. I think this development may well have a detrimental effect on the wildlife of the area that is already scrabbling for space. It would be fantastic to have some forward thinking planning in our city, that does not rely so heavily on money from mighty developers, and that takes into account and incorporates the diverse and fabulous culture of this city. I feel this especially of the Ouseburn that has nurtured so many creatives and has a real spirit of people working together to make good things happen. | 06/02/2022 | Object |
| The placement of this this development, foremost the tower that will overshadow neighboring areas, will only be detrimental to the health of the city. Especially to the ousburn and quayside area Reason 1. The iconic view from the entrance to the ousburn which has become a signature attraction of the city will be blocked by the monstrosity. Not only will the view be blocked but the sun will also, ruining the atmosphere of the estiblishments in the area who's livelihood rely on large beer garden spaces. Another iconic attraction of the area known internationally as one of the best spots in the uk Reason 2 Residents and businesses in the area already struggle with lack of access to parking, Internet access and waste removal the development would only increase this dificulty tenfold Reason 3. The plan is unsightly and would cause irreversible damage to the history and heritage of the ousburn and quayside area. How can this plan even be considered as an option moving forward. | 06/02/2022 | Object |
| Further to your letter (dated 17th January 2022 ) requesting comment on the Malmo Quays project, as residents of Mariners Wharf we object to the proposed development Attached are detailed comments attached covering the following key areas: Environmental Statement – Volume II – Chapter 13: Townscape & Visual Impact Assessment – Incorrect use of GLVIA3 methodology and assessment of impacts/effects Planning Policy – Conflict with Policies - DM23 ( Residential Amenity) and QO1 (Quayside and Ouseburn Sub-Area) Traffic Issues | 06/02/2022 | Object |
| This building is completely out of character with the area, it will destroy what is a unique area of Newcastle- existing homes and businesses will suffer badly if not be destroyed. The development will increase traffic in the area as the developers havnt bothered to consider parking for the residents as a result on street parking will increase again having a negative effect on the area. This proposal delivers no benefits to the local area so as a result this has to be declined- say no! | 06/02/2022 | Object |
| I have concerns about the unsuitability of the building for its location and its fundamental altering of the character of the area. The views from Byker and Ouseburn up the Tyne are some of the most iconic in the region and this fundamentally and irrevocably alters them. Were this to be built in an area where there was a deficit of housing that could perhaps be justified but Shieldfield and Byker both have substantial potential for rejuvination which should always be prioritised over new development in line with the councils environmental goals. Indeed this building substantially detracts from recent housing projects at the malings and steenbergs yard as it reduces both sunlight and view and also damages the outlook of flats on the quayside and St Laurence Road. Ouseburn is a gem in Newcastle's crown and it is understandable that there are attempts to monetise that however it is essential for long term sustainability that new development enhances its character. This development does the opposite. | 06/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to this application on the grounds it is not in keeping with the surrounding Ouseburn conservation area. The Malmo Quay buildings will block views of important historic buildings such as the Grade II* Listed former Ouseburn School from the quayside. | 06/02/2022 | Object |
| I live within 200m of Malmo Quay and although I am in favour of the site being used for housing, I object to the plan for a tower block specifically, on two main grounds: 1) It is out of scale to everything else around it. At 18 storeys it will tower over the spire of the adjacent Sailors Bethel, all the nearby heritage buildings such as the former Ouseburn School, Toffee Factory and Hotel du Vin, and even the six-storey apartments at Lime Square which are on much higher ground. Standing immediately to the south of the Ouseburn valley, it will quite literally cast a shadow over the conservation area through most of the day. 2) Lack of parking. If you visit Mariners Wharf or High Quay between 9pm-7am you will see that there are about the same number of parked cars as apartments. This is natural in an area with almost no shops (and notably, no grocery shop within 20 minutes' walk). This consititutes strong evidence that car ownership is likely to be the same at Malmo Quay (and after all, anyone who can afford £250,000+ for a flat can afford a car). The provision of so few parking spaces for so many car owners will cause congestion and illegal parking on the streets closest by. Tyne Street is already under pressure: cars can be seen parked on the double yellow lines there most days. The developer's promise to add some parking at the far end of Spillers Quay is lip service at best - on winter nights, or when people have been shopping by car and need to transfer purchases to their flat, they will park absolutely as close to home as they can get away with. I would welcome a plan for affordable, low-density housing on this site but I urge you reject the plan for a block taller than the neighbouring buildings, especially the Sailors Bethel just 75m away. | 07/02/2022 | Object |
| This proposed tower block is completely out of place on the Quayside and would be a major detriment to the area's historic environment. The Quayside area generally and the Ouseburn and East End particularly are well-known for the lovely views along the river, especially the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. A key aspect of making this area pleasant to spend time in is that the interesting modern buildings are at an appropriate scale and design to compliment the well-preserved historic structures. This proposed block is huge compared to the surrounding buildings and is neither attractive nor unusual enough from an architectural point of view to merit such a prominent location. The tower would completely dwarf any other structures around it and seriously detracts from the various listed buildings, bridges, and other landmarks along the river. A residential block at a smaller scale would be appropriate, but this proposed tower is far too large and is totally out of keeping with the other structures in the area. | 07/02/2022 | Object |
| 2021/2404/01/EIA This is a totally unnecessary, architecturally questionable proposal. There is already too much housing on the north bank of the Tyne, without the services to support it. There are few handy shops, few more than 20 years ago, before the 'keyworker accommodation' arrived. The proposed building is an ugly, phallic monstrosity, ill-suited to the city, never mind the location. The location is already more than well served with new housing and the proposal will destroy the proportionate nature of the existing buildings there. In the evening the light from the west casts a beautiful glow over the area - this will be significantly negatively affected by the proposal. The area is already overpopulated by cars and the influx of more cars and meagre parking will damage access for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport to the east quayside area even more than now. I have mainly considered the tower but the lowrise proposal is not much better. The area needs space as well as occupation; space opens the area for use; if the area becomes another congested urban mess, it will lose the special character it has and dissuade visitors. Please think carefully about this plan, which appears to feed the greed of developers, rather than improving the city. | 07/02/2022 | Object |
| The Malmo Quay proposal fails properly to consider Newcastle Council Planning Policy: Q01 Quayside and Ouseburn Sub area: 3: Leisure culture and tourism development that complements existing uses. Malmo proposal fails to do this, as it is predominantly housing. Repositioning the Cycle hub is not adding to or improving current provision 4. Improving pedestrian and cycle access (iii): rationalising on street parking and promoting shared parking facilities. Malmo proposal shows only 18 parking spaces with no clear strategy to reduce car use and improve parking/ access for other users or residents 6: Sustaining and enhancing the character of the area: re-use of vacant buildings; respecting the scale, plot sizes, topography and historic grain of the area. The Malmo proposal does none of these things and clearly contravenes this policy, by proposing an 18 storey tower block 8: Enhancing the urban green infrastructure (iii): development providing green infrastructure or public spaces at Malmo Quay: The proposal does not enhance green space and public space and amenity. The current site clearly requires improvement but this proposal is not appropriate with regard to Newcastle Council’s stated planning priorities and policy for the location Further objections: 1. Scale and position: The Scale and positioning of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for its location. 2. Quality of design: There's very little merit in an 18 story tower block in such a prominent position. The design shows no sympathy or understanding of the context of the location. It does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. 3. Parking: The submitted plans for Malmo Quay only include18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block. This provision is woefully inadequate and guaranteed to put even greater pressure on local on-street parking and create potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. 4. The proposed 73 Parking Spaces on Spillers Wharf are not actually part of this application. Even then, at best, they won't be available for at least 3-4 years, will also have to service the 76 apartments potentially being build there and a fully functioning carpark is being removed to create this site. Stating ‘residents will have access’ to the ‘parking barn’ on the Spillers site is no guarantee of adequate parking provision. It is ironic that the cycle hub and 72 cycle route are sited here: proposals need to increase walking and cycling provision, rather than add to the already significant car and parking issues 5. Accessibility: Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. There is no clear description of provision in the proposal to demonstrate that new residents will not need or expect to have access to cars/ parking spaces 6. Planning Monoculture: more than sufficient/ too much private housing already exists on the quayside location: what is required is social housing, not more of the same. Variations in housing design does not count - it is still housing which does not meet the need for social housing, with reduced public access. Malmo and Spillers quay proposals would see the locality dominated by private housing when what is needed is social housing provision. 7. Arguments of need for more housing do not stand in this location and the brownfield site argument is specious: there are numerous brownfield sites across Newcastle that could be developed for housing - many of them in a 1 mile radius of this proposal. The reality is the developers want this site because it will bring in more cash, not because of any claims to help solve local housing issues. 8. Lack of Environmental responsibility: Knocking down an existing building (cycle Hub) and rebuilding on Malmo quay; building a huge sky-scraper; new build generally with no consideration of alternative buildings for repurposing as housing. This will generate enormous quantities of Co2. There are MANY office buildings 1 mile away in the centre of Newcastle that can be repurposed as housing, for a fraction of the carbon output. 9. On 3 April 2019, the council declared a Climate Emergency to make Newcastle carbon neutral by 2030. This needs to be put into action in meaningful ways. There is no justification for new build housing in this location in Newcastle, or any other, until repurposing and renovation options have been carried out 10. Local amenities (supermarket) will require car use or vehicle delivery, thus adding to local traffic congestion and reducing air quality. Local schools: none within reasonable walking distance. GP services, likewise. Planning design is clearly predicated on residents not adding to capacity issues on local schools and GP services. 11. Loss of public amenity: The pandemic and past 12 months have seen intense local use by residents of the nearby area which is valued as a public amenity and space to socialise. The Malmo site would be better developed as an accessible public space/ urban park, to extend local access and informal/ leisure use: NOT a private development that reduces local amenity 12. Cost/ benefit: the 18 story tower block is for the developer’s profit. There is no evidence to suggest this has been considered as an appropriate scale or type of building for the location, apart from a self-fulfilling argument regarding commercial value. 13. The choice of a housing development and the location of this proposal is based on capital value of housing alone i.e. maximum revenue to the developer. Considerations such as local benefit/ social value, commercial value for local hospitality / SMEs; health benefit of green space, better walking and cycling provision; educational benefit – local history, local social pride of place do not appear to have been accounted for in any kind of cohesive social/ economic cost/benefit analysis 14. Loss of destination/ visitor amenity: the mouth of the Ouseburn is well used by public and visitors due to its significance as a historical site and greatly admired view of the river Tyne. E.g. new year laser light shows 15. Iconic views of Tyne bridge and river are marketed by Newcastle Gateshead as a destination, bringing significant value in terms of primary and secondary spend to the locality. Visitors will not come to see a tower block and some generic housing. 16. Inappropriate development on the mouth of the Ouseburn: reduces potential destination/ visitor income and reduces amenity and the significant local leisure and tourism destination value of the Ouseburn site as a whole and the quayside as a whole. This in turn will impact negatively on local businesses and trade 17. There is already sufficient/ too much private land development on the quayside and lower Ouseburn. This proposal excludes opportunity for different improvements and developments to public access and amenity. The Malmo site is ideally situated to: • Offer better local/ visitor use and access- urban park, seating, pop up café local businesses etc • Offer appropriate and relevant development to tell the story and history of the Ouseburn and mouth of the Ouseburn • Create an open space to complement the linear spaces along the quayside; seating/ resting/ pop up cafes. Local events. Allow local public and visitors to enjoy the river, its views and its natural environment 18. Cycle path route 72: Already congested here and significant overlap with walking public and cycling. Access and pedestrian/ cycle use needs to be improved not restricted by yet more private development. 19. Also increased traffic/ congestion brought by the new residents has not been considered (over and above the wholly inadequate parking provision). Traffic flow here needs reducing NOT increasing. Safety, amenity air quality. For these reasons, I strongly urge you to reject this proposal. | 07/02/2022 | Object |
| This is a terrible idea and not at all in keeping with the current developments and premises by that site. This would be a blight on an otherwise jewel for the city and would be a short-sighted net-negative for the culture and opportunities locally! | 07/02/2022 | Object |
| The monstrosity of that tower block will totally spoil the ambience of the quayside! I really can’t believe this is even being considered. Please tell me it is a joke! Not only will it spoil countless views, it will overshadow the other buildings and I really can’t see who would want to live in them with that next door. I imagine it will cast shadows all over the place and spoil People’s enjoyment of the sun on the few occasions it does shine! I am also concerned about the effect it will have on the traffic in the area, as I cycle down there quite a lot and it is currently a pleasant ride, but I presume all the extra people will bring extra traffic? Please, please, please don’t let this monstrosity go ahead. It will not add to Newcastle as a tourist destination and spoil one of the jewels in Newcastle’s crown. | 07/02/2022 | Object |
| Newcastle 7th February 2022 To Newcastle City Council Planning Department, REF: 2021/2404/01/EIA RE: Malmo Quay & Spillers Quay planning application, letter of objection Dear Planning Committee members, We are writing as concerned citizens of the city and as academics in the built environment at Newcastle University, School of Architecture, Planning & Landscape, in relation to the proposed development on Malmo Quay and Spiller’s Quay, in particular the proposed 18 story tower block on the Malmo Quay site. We write in a personal capacity and our views do not necessarily express those of the school or wider university. We want to appeal to our city’s pledge to be both a climate leader and having declared a climate emergency – two actions that make us proud and honoured to live in Newcastle. Our world is facing unprecedented environmental and ecological collapse. How we use resources – including those that we extract from the ground and refine into building products – sits behind the crisis we are now beginning to experience. Our government has pledged to reduce carbon emissions by two-thirds by 2035 as reiterated in Industrial Decarbonisation Strategy Report, 2021, asserting the UK's commitment to the Paris Agreement and Glasgow COP26. There is a tremendous national responsibility for the building industry to act accordingly as the built environment accounts for nearly forty percent of carbon emissions globally – a figure that includes the construction as well as running emissions of our buildings. To continue to build using substantial quantities of steel, concentre, glass, plastics – highly carbon intensive building materials – will make no change to our journey to net zero, and will keep on contributing to the heating of our atmosphere and seas, and to the degradation of our soils. Our objection asks you as a council committee to consider whether we can justifiably approve a structure that in its construction will consume large quantities of raw materials, whose extraction, refinement and use releases significant quantities of carbon into our atmosphere. We ask you to consider what actions the planning committee can take now to lock-in and prevent the release of further atmospheric carbon and the consumption of energy and resources – and ask you to consider your obligations to both present inhabitants of our city and future generations to limit development where it significantly impacts our environment. We note that in Section 3 of the submitted Sustainability and Utilities Report, under the ‘Reduce whole-life CO2equivalent emissions’ that the developers are awaiting a life-cycle carbon assessment by Focus Assessments. These assessments look at the carbon emissions from the materials, construction and use of a building over its expected lifespan. This includes the carbon embodied in the construction materials, the construction process, the energy consumed by the building, and the energy released in its demolition. Steel and concrete construction processes and the nature of the materials are highly carbon intensive – in both their production and at the end of their lifespan. Low rise buildings can be built that have much lower carbon emissions, however conventionally constructed tower blocks are inherently carbon intensive, in their materials, construction and use. We urge the planning committee to seriously consider the impact of the tower block on the target of net zero by 2030 – an ambitious target welcomed as part of the council’s action on the climate crisis. This target date – 8 years from now – is necessary to at least attempt to mitigate increases in atmospheric carbon, and to keep below 1.5-2 degrees of warming. Breaching these temperature increases will result in life-systems altering environmental change and collapse, and it is imperative that we seriously consider all new developments under these criteria. We note the developer’s previous engagement in ethical and environmentally led decision-making processes in their recent, local developments and would urge Igloo to carry out and release a full life-cycle carbon assessment of the tower block prior to planning being granted, and for the planning committee to fully scrutinize the development for its likely impact on the city council’s target of net zero by 2030. If this ambitious target is to be met, and we are to attempt to limit environmental degradation and collapse for ourselves and future generations, it is down to you as members of the planning committee to explore and examine applications for significant and highly energy intensive developments rigorously and with this target in mind. We urge you to reject this application, to ask the developer to explore low-energy intensive development options, and to carry out and submit a whole-life cycle carbon assessment on any future application. Yours faithfully, Dr. Edward Wainwright, Lecturer in Architecture, Climate Literacy Co-Lead, School of Architecture, Planning & Landscape, Newcastle University Dr. Marin Sawa, Hub for Biotechnology in the Built Environment, School of Architecture, Planning & Landscape, Newcastle University | 07/02/2022 | Object |
| I wish to register an objection to the proposed construction of a tower block for residential use at the Malmo Quay site. The proposal is intrusive and in my view does not comply with general planning policy for the area, i.e. that development proposals should be in scale and harmony with other buildings in the location of the mouth of the Ouseburn. There are attempts to disguise, or at best mitigate the negative visual impacts the erection of an isolated tower block such as this would have on the area would it to be constructed, but they inevitably fail given the overbearing mass of the building in this inappropriate location. This is compounded by the rather bland beige brick finish of this and the adjacent smaller scale housing development. It fails to do justice to this prominent site on the quayside in terms of acting as a visual enhancement; indeed, as the visualisations supplied in the application make clear, its prominence and overbearing is evident from many key viewpoints in the quayside area. Please don't approve this visual eyesore. No doubt the developer will make a case about viability and the need to provide massing on the site - to which I think most Newcastle residents would say, if so, don't build something which will detract from the character of the area in the first place. In addition, there does seem to be a lack of car parking for the number of dwellings proposed. Other residential developments near to the site along the quayside in both direction have I believe demonstrated inadequate levels of car parking, with the need for 'sustainable' other forms of transport no doubt having been used as a reason for providing inadequate levels of parking in such developments. Finally, such developments will I believe lead to objections to noise from live music and other events in adjacent entertainment venues. This long term pressure will lead to the decline in the appeal of the area, and that which the council is purporting to promote in the Ouseburn area. | 07/02/2022 | Object |
| I wish to register an objection to the proposed construction of a tower block for residential use at the Malmo Quay site. The proposal is intrusive and in my view does not comply with general planning policy for the area, i.e. that development proposals should be in scale and harmony with other buildings in the location of the mouth of the Ouseburn. There are attempts to disguise, or at best mitigate the negative visual impacts the erection of an isolated tower block such as this would have on the area would it to be constructed, but they inevitably fail given the overbearing mass of the building in this inappropriate location. This is compounded by the rather bland beige brick finish of this and the adjacent smaller scale housing development. It fails to do justice to this prominent site on the quayside in terms of acting as a visual enhancement; indeed, as the visualisations supplied in the application make clear, its prominence and overbearing is evident from many key viewpoints in the quayside area. Please don't approve this visual eyesore. No doubt the developer will make a case about viability and the need to provide massing on the site - to which I think most Newcastle residents would say, if so, don't build something which will detract from the character of the area in the first place. In addition, there does seem to be a lack of car parking for the number of dwellings proposed. Other residential developments near to the site along the quayside in both direction have I believe demonstrated inadequate levels of car parking, with the need for 'sustainable' other forms of transport no doubt having been used as a reason for providing inadequate levels of parking in such developments. Finally, such developments will I believe lead to objections to noise from live music and other events in adjacent entertainment venues. This long term pressure will lead to the decline in the appeal of the area, and that which the council is purporting to promote in the Ouseburn area. | 07/02/2022 | Object |
| - The Scale and massing of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for its location. - Quality of design; there's very little merit in a beige 18 story tower block in such a prominent position. Does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. Newcastle's architectural prizes - the bridges over the Tyne - will be completely overshadowed by the scale of this building. One of the main tourist attractions of this city is the journey across one of the bridges. It's inevitable that the eye will be drawn to this dominant structure that isn't in keeping with the engineering and architecture of this city. It seems like a backward step and a return to the T D Smith school of town planning. - Parking; The submitted plans for Malmo Quay appear to only show 18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block, woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. *It's important to remember that the proposed 73 Parking Spaces on Spillers Wharf are not actually part of this application. Even then, at best they won't be available for at least 3-4 years, will also have to service the 76 apartments potentially being build there and there's a fully functioning carpark being removed to create that site * Accessibility - Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. | 07/02/2022 | Object |
| Based on the images available, the proposed build is not in keeping with the look of the area, particularly in regards to the size of the proposed tower. Furthermore, the height of the tower compared to the existing residences will have a negative affect on our privacy due to it overlooking them by some distance. the design of the building is not in keeping with the historic buildings of the Quayside and Ouseburn, nor in keeping with Newcastle more generally which, considering the way it will dominate views from as far as the Tyne Bridge, should be considered. It will also block sunlight for many in the area due to it being so much larger than anything nearby. It should also be noted that the proposed plans do not adequately satisfy the need for parking in this area - already a problem and likely to get worse if the space at the Bicycle Hub is taken - with fewer spots proposed than flats being planned. Furthermore, increasing the amount of traffic in what is a narrow area that already has traffic problems due to the lack of space for pavements in certain areas forcing pedestrians to mix with cars is a bad idea. Additionally, this development takes no consideration as to how how the increase in people living in the area will affect nearby amenities. There is already a lack of local convenience stores and public transport, with the nearest supermarkets being approx. 1km away in each direction, and the main supermarket 9rather than smaller Tesco Express) Morrisons being up a steep hill that is treacherous in winter, icy conditions. Likewise, the nearest metro stations are a similar distance away in each direction and the bus services is infrequent and limited, further encouraging people to buy cars in an area where there is not enough space for the ones already here. Dr Ian Jones 5 Citipeak, Walker Road Newcastle, NE6 1DH | 07/02/2022 | Object |
| I do not agree with this proposal - the sheer size and the rest of the proposed development would make an area that is regularly used for walkers along the Tyne more cluttered and detract from the ambiance being created down the Tyne. The size of it would mean an increase in cars in an area with already complicated and limited access due to the bank and the ouseburn. The height of the building is unnecessary, except to offer more opportunity for financial gain for the company whilst offering no benefit to the local environment. It would detract from the area significantly. | 07/02/2022 | Object |
| I strongly reject the plans for this development on the Newcastle Quayside. This development represents nothing but lack of taste and total lack of care for the area. This developments is a clear reflection of corporation self-interest and greed. This development (tower block especially) is a ridiculous idea. This development will wipe out The Cycle Hub (that serves the public) ,without a substantial alternative for this business so it could continue its purpose at its current shape. No, No, No | 07/02/2022 | Object |
| The Malmo Quay proposal fails properly to consider Newcastle Council Planning Policy: Q01 Quayside and Ouseburn Sub area: 3: Leisure culture and tourism development that complements existing uses. Malmo proposal fails to do this, as it is predominantly housing. Repositioning the Cycle hub is not adding to or improving current provision 4. Improving pedestrian and cycle access (iii): rationalising on street parking and promoting shared parking facilities. Malmo proposal shows only 18 parking spaces with no clear strategy to reduce car use and improve parking/ access for other users or residents 6: Sustaining and enhancing the character of the area: re-use of vacant buildings; respecting the scale, plot sizes, topography and historic grain of the area. The Malmo proposal does none of these things and clearly contravenes this policy, by proposing an 18 storey tower block 8; Enhancing the urban green infrastructure (iii): development providing green infrastructure or public spaces at Malmo Quay: The proposal does not enhance green space and public space and amenity. The current site clearly requires improvement but this proposal is not appropriate with regard to Newcastle Council’s stated planning priorities and policy for the location Further objections: 1. Scale and position: The Scale and positioning of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for its location. 2. Quality of design: There's very little merit in an 18 story tower block in such a prominent position. The design shows no sympathy or understanding of the context of the location. It does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. 3. Parking: The submitted plans for Malmo Quay only include18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block. This provision is woefully inadequate and guaranteed to put even greater pressure on local on-street parking and create potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. 4. The proposed 73 Parking Spaces on Spillers Wharf are not actually part of this application. Even then, at best, they won't be available for at least 3-4 years, will also have to service the 76 apartments potentially being build there and a fully functioning carpark is being removed to create this site. Stating ‘residents will have access’ to the ‘parking barn’ on the Spillers site is no guarantee of adequate parking provision. It is ironic that the cycle hub and 72 cycle route are sited here: proposals need to increase walking and cycling provision, rather than add to the already significant car and parking issues 5. Accessibility: Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. There is no clear description of provision in the proposal to demonstrate that new residents will not need or expect to have access to cars/ parking spaces 6. Planning Monoculture: more than sufficient/ too much private housing already exists on the quayside location: what is required is social housing, not more of the same. Variations in housing design does not count - it is still housing which does not meet the need for social housing, with reduced public access. Malmo and Spillers quay proposals would see the locality dominated by private housing when what is needed is social housing provision. 7. Arguments of need for more housing do not stand in this location and the brownfield site argument is specious: there are numerous brownfield sites across Newcastle that could be developed for housing - many of them in a 1 mile radius of this proposal. The reality is the developers want this site because it will bring in more cash, not because of any claims to help solve local housing issues. 8. Lack of Environmental responsibility: Knocking down an existing building (cycle Hub) and rebuilding on Malmo quay; building a huge sky-scraper; new build generally with no consideration of alternative buildings for repurposing as housing. This will generate enormous quantities of Co2. There are MANY office buildings 1 mile away in the centre of Newcastle that can be repurposed as housing, for a fraction of the carbon output. 9. On 3 April 2019, the council declared a Climate Emergency to make Newcastle carbon neutral by 2030. This needs to be put into action in meaningful ways. There is no justification for new build housing in this location in Newcastle, or any other, until repurposing and renovation options have been carried out 10. Local amenities (supermarket) will require car use or vehicle delivery, thus adding to local traffic congestion and reducing air quality. Local schools: none within reasonable walking distance. GP services, likewise. Planning design is clearly predicated on residents not adding to capacity issues on local schools and GP services. 11. Loss of public amenity: The pandemic and past 12 months have seen intense local use by residents of the nearby area which is valued as a public amenity and space to socialise. The Malmo site would be better developed as an accessible public space/ urban park, to extend local access and informal/ leisure use: NOT a private development that reduces local amenity 12. Cost/ benefit: the 18 story tower block is for the developer’s profit. There is no evidence to suggest this has been considered as an appropriate scale or type of building for the location, apart from a self-fulfilling argument regarding commercial value. 13. The choice of a housing development and the location of this proposal is based on capital value of housing alone i.e. maximum revenue to the developer. Considerations such as local benefit/ social value, commercial value for local hospitality / SMEs; health benefit of green space, better walking and cycling provision; educational benefit – local history, local social pride of place do not appear to have been accounted for in any kind of cohesive social/ economic cost/benefit analysis 14. Loss of destination/ visitor amenity: the mouth of the Ouseburn is well used by public and visitors due to its significance as a historical site and greatly admired view of the river Tyne. E.g. new year laser light shows 15. Iconic views of Tyne bridge and river are marketed by Newcastle Gateshead as a destination, bringing significant value in terms of primary and secondary spend to the locality. Visitors will not come to see a tower block and some generic housing. 16. Inappropriate development on the mouth of the Ouseburn: reduces potential destination/ visitor income and reduces amenity and the significant local leisure and tourism destination value of the Ouseburn site as a whole and the quayside as a whole. This in turn will impact negatively on local businesses and trade 17. There is already sufficient/ too much private land development on the quayside and lower Ouseburn. This proposal excludes opportunity for different improvements and developments to public access and amenity. The Malmo site is ideally situated to: • Offer better local/ visitor use and access- urban park, seating, pop up café local businesses etc • Offer appropriate and relevant development to tell the story and history of the Ouseburn and mouth of the Ouseburn • Create an open space to complement the linear spaces along the quayside; seating/ resting/ pop up cafes. Local events. Allow local public and visitors to enjoy the river, its views and its natural environment 18. Cycle path route 72: Already congested here and significant overlap with walking public and cycling. Access and pedestrian/ cycle use needs to be improved not restricted by yet more private development. 19. Also increased traffic/ congestion brought by the new residents has not been considered (over and above the wholly inadequate parking provision). Traffic flow here needs reducing NOT increasing. Safety, amenity air quality. For these reasons, I strongly urge you to reject this proposal. | 07/02/2022 | Object |
| The plans for this development are obscene. Even if the proposed structure will not block the view from the Free Trade down to the bridges, it is still entirely out of keeping with the industrial heritage in the area. There have already been several hideous additions to the Ouseburn at the Malings (shoddy, destroyed access through the Ouseburn) and Ouse Street (totally out of place) - we don't need any more. Leave it alone. It's beautiful as it is and I haven't spoken to a single person who thinks this is a good idea. | 07/02/2022 | Object |
| This is a large and visually unappealing building, it is not at all in keeping with the overall architecture of the surrounding area. Ouseburn is of significant historical importance to the city of Newcastle. This building will detract from its industrial heritage, block light from many of the areas available to walk and surrounding buildings. Despite the number of bars and restaurants in the area Ouseburn is an interesting and peaceful area to visit, this proposal will have a negative impact on the areas appeal and will increase the impact of traffic. | 07/02/2022 | Object |
| I strongly oppose the application to build this. I used to live on Walker Road and still frequent the Ouseburn regularly. It is a place of peace and natural beauty, with amazing views of the Tyne. This building would be a blight on the area. It would ruin a famous view and skyline appreciated by thousands of visitors to the city. The infrascructure of the area would struggle to accommodate the extra cars and people proposed by the plan. | 07/02/2022 | Object |
| I regard this tower as totally inappropriate for the position of proposed development. I do not object to the low level housing, but the tower would totally change the building line & would cause shade for everyone around at some part of the day. Please do not allow this to go ahead. | 07/02/2022 | Object |
| To whom it may concern, Malmo and Spillers Quay – Hybrid Planning Application, December 2021 I write to raise my serious concerns regarding the above planning application. Having assessed details of the proposed development it is clear that it would have a cataclysmic effect on the character and cohesiveness of the Quayside-Ouseburn landscape. The proposals fall short in a number of critical respects: - The sheer size and scale of the proposed development would inflict irreversible damage on the skyline of the Quayside, Ouseburn, and East End. - It would also interfere with the iconic sightlines enjoyed by countless residents and established businesses. These businesses are frequented by individuals and families from across the city, and beyond; indeed, many of these businesses – including the Free Trade Inn – are known globally. Thus, the potential damage arising from these proposals would be felt deeply and widely. - As anyone who frequents that part of Newcastle knows, infrastructure is at a premium. It is disturbing, therefore, that the proposed development is to be so poorly served in terms of parking provision (in particular). Having lived for many years on the Staithes South Bank development in Gateshead, I know only too well the conflict such poor provision can cause, particularly when car parking spills out into surrounding areas – as it inevitably would in this case. This is especially troubling given how popular this area of Newcastle is with cyclists and pedestrians. To summarise: this is an ill-considered proposal which, if supported, would do profound damage to one of the few areas of Newcastle that has not already been touched by shoddy, low quality development. History would not look kindly on those who support it. For these reasons, I strongly urge you to reject it. | 08/02/2022 | Object |
| I wish to object to this huge building project. This would impact on the number of people in Newcastle, increased parking requirements and increased congestion . Also we need more green spaces not more concrete tower blocks, we need to look after our planet and this would appear to do the opposite | 08/02/2022 | Object |
| The larger tower block itself is huge compared to its surroundings which marks it an eyesore for current residents and residents to then come at a later date. It doesn't blend with its surroundings whereas the townhouses slot in to the area. Furthermore there needs to be a great amount of green spaces in the area rather than further congestion of cars leading to more pollution. If this was transformed into a space with ecology in mind, then it could be for a greater good, however this building will only prevent a beautiful view for current residents and further cause more environmental issues for the residents and surrounding wildlife. | 08/02/2022 | Object |
| My name is Chloe Myers, from Jesmond - 15 Otterburn Terrace & I am objecting to the proposed development of the Malmo Quay 2021/2404/01/EIA. I live in the surrounding area to Ouseburn and love the area for its sense of calm in juxtaposition to the city. The proposition to build such an eyesore within the local scenery and the heritage hub that is ouseburn is something that i find totally unnecessary. I am a young person who had intended to stay in newcastle after studying my uni degree, now more and more of us young people including me and my partner are intending to leave due to safe, artistic and local places becoming so gentrified. The building does not reflect the history of the ouseburn, the people who love the ouseburn and accessibility it once offered to the tyne, it is wildly over powering and quite frankly an eyesore. I really hope you take into consideration the amount of people who are passionate about the heritage of the ouseburn itself and know if you allow this development to happen you will be ruining one of our local gems for years to come. | 08/02/2022 | Object |
| I strongly object to this planning proposal. It will be an eyesore in a beautiful part of Newcastle with enormous cultural and historical significance. The road infrastructure is not suitable for the influx of congestion that would be caused, it would be an eyesore on the most beautiful view in the town. The asthetics are not fitting with the other buildings in the area and such a vast residential property would undoubtedly have an impact on the ability to provide outdoor entertainment which the Ouseburn is famous for. | 08/02/2022 | Object |
| I live locally (Rosalind Place, NE6 1LJ) with my family and strongly believe that the Scale and massing of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is completely inappropriate for it's location. I wish to also comment on the quality of design which is poor and unsympathetic to the area; I strongly believe that there is very little merit in a beige 18 story tower block in such a prominent position. Clearly it will not fit in with the surrounding area, including the beautiful historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. In relation to Parking; The submitted plans for Malmo Quay appear to only show 18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block, woefully inadequate and guaranteed to add even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. I understand that the proposed 73 Parking Spaces on Spillers Wharf are not actually part of this application and at best they won't be available for at least 3-4 years, will also have to service the 76 apartments potentially being build there and there's a fully functioning carpark being removed to create that site. Also proposal has very poor accessibility. Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. | 08/02/2022 | Object |
| A development of this scale significantly changes the existing environment of the Quayside and the Ouseburn, which is defined by the variety, character and history of the buildings in this area. The Malmo Quay proposal does not respect the character of this unique part of our city. The tower block especially stands out like a sore thumb in an area that has significant historic value. There is a special character in the industrial heritage of the Ouseburn which many other developments have sought to maintain through redevelopment of former industrial buildings. My main concern however is the impact on the local highway infrastructure and transport. The public transport in this area is poor and the roads already suffer from the volume of traffic in the area. This development would no doubt increase that and I struggle to see how the area can cope with this. I primarily access the Ouseburn and Quayside as a pedestrian. This is largely due to the lack of public transport and parking in the area. Adding a significant number of new homes is only going to make matters words. As a pedestrian in the area sometimes this is already feels like a matter of taking your life into your own hands with pavement provision and road signage patchy. If his development goes ahead it will significantly impact what has been for the past few years an area with a growing number of independent businesses and a thirving creative community. The draw for them is their location and this development will certainly impact my decision to visit the area in future, both through the period of construction and beyond. This development feels like a great loss for the city, not a gain. | 08/02/2022 | Object |
| I am very concerned at the scale and impact of the proposed development on this very important and prominent site. I am supportive of the Malmo Quay site being developed, but I do not support an 18 storey tower block. I think this is gross over development, and does not have any architectural merit or reason - it seems to be purely about maximising profit from the land available. In the Ouseburn Valley Urban Design Framework, it is specified that any developments should show “sensitivity in scale and massing.” While this site sits at the southern end of the Ouseburn Valley, it should surely be looked at in the same context. The OVUDF talks about ensuring that existing structures and building elements which currently act as orientation points in the valley should remain dominant in height. If this 18 storey tower were to be built, it would dwarf everything else in the area, so existing structures would no longer be ‘dominant in height’. The proposed tower is out of all proportion with the surrounding area, and would have a detrimental effect on the light available to surrounding homes and businesses. This area contains a variety of different architectural styles, but all sit within a framework, and none are anywhere near 18 storeys. The design of the tower also has no relationship with the surrounding area’s architecture. | 08/02/2022 | Object |
| The scheme as proposed does not do enough to protect the heritage of the site and the surronding quayside. This plan does not do enough to protect important views of the riverscape and bridges from the east end of the city. These sightlines need to be protected and enhanced and the current scheme does not do this in its current form | 08/02/2022 | Object |
| The proposed height of the tower is completely out of keeping with the surrounding topography, and will detract from the other characterful and distinctive buildings in the area, such as the toffee factory, the glasshouse bridge and the Ouseburn School. It will block sunlight and cast shade on a wide range of residential properties and local businesses. There are limited provisions for public transport to the area and the provision of parking appears far short of what would be adequate for a development of this size. This would also impact on the safety of the national cycle route along the Quayside. Kind Regards, Greig | 08/02/2022 | Object |
| Please do not ruin the strong sense of community that runs through the ouseburn. Plans like these aim to fill an area which is full of art, culture and a diverse community and turn it into a lifeless and hollow money making scheme. Yes, money will be made but at the cost of the independent businesses and the locals who feel so passionate about this area. A place that is for these people and not for tourists. | 08/02/2022 | Object |
| I would like to object to the Malmo Quay 2021/2404/01/EIA application. The tower on the plot is grossly out of context with the local area. It will damage the historic appearance of the Ouseburn and the Newcastle Quayside as it is truly out of scale with its surroundings. This development will negatively effect the experience of the Ouseburn and Newcastle Quayside to locals and visitors alike. It will overshadow the relatively small local businesses, causing issues with overshadowing and reducing daylight for those who wish to enjoy the peaceful outdoor environment of the local area, all for the vanity of private tenants. This is not to mention the potential ecological damages a building development of this scale will have on the habitats of the many creatures that call the Ouseburn home. Pollution from construction works and the vast increase in vehicular traffic and future parking will inevitably cause damage to habitats and pose a future flood risk to the area. Currently the plans only show 18 parking spaces for 62 apartments. This will undoubtedly lead to people parking on-street! There is also going to be a huge increase in levels of pollution and waste, causing odours and air pollution. Have these impacts been truly assessed? Overall, I feel very strongly that this development does nothing to enhance the Quayside or Ouseburn, but rather threatens the very character that makes it so special. This is a scheme designed by an architect who has never set foot in the North East, and it tells. | 08/02/2022 | Object |
| This development will seriously damage the views that attract people to local businesses such as the Free Trade Inn. Not to mention the plans are completely out of sync with the rest of the buildings in the area and along the riverside. | 08/02/2022 | Object |
| I strongly object to the Malmo Quay development, application reference 2021/2404/01/EIA. This tower block will neither respect nor enhance the historic character of Ouseburn and the Quayside, two of Newcastle’s most treasured heritage areas. It only seeks to enhance the financial standings of the developers From the planning application, it’s obvious that the building will alter both siteline and enjoyment of beloved local landmarks such as the Free Trade, the Tyne Bar, and the Toffee Factory. Not to mention, the view down the Tyne from Ouseburn is iconic. It’s a major drawing point for patrons of the existing businesses in the nearby area, and tourists taking photos of our iconic seven bridges. This development is not iconic, and it never will be. So why should we have to put up with something that will stand out like a sore thumb in a district rich with our heritage? We shouldn’t, and these developers should be ashamed for even considering such a blatant cash grab at our history’s expense. | 08/02/2022 | Object |
| A residential block 18 stories high is not representative of the current shape and feel of the area. currently there are a number of buildings which have around 6 stories or less. A new property this high will spoil the dynamic in the ouseburn area. The increased amount of dwellings in such a small area with room for over 70 cars ( not including street parking) would create more pollution in the area. The lack of amenities would increase more deliveries to the region creating more noise (and as previous mentioned, more pollution. I have no problem in a development in the area, I just believe that an 18 storey building is wrong for the area and it's height should be limited to the same size of others in the region | 08/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to this application. The design is totally out of keeping with the local history and current architecture of the area. It will spoil the atmosphere of this part of the quayside to the detriment of local businesses and residents. The tower is an absolute eyesore | 08/02/2022 | Object |
| Hello, I am writing regarding the Malmo Quay development, reference number 2021/2404/01/EIA. As a citizen of Newcastle, the Quayside is an extremely important place. It’s a beautiful location which attracts lots of visitors, as well as hosting some of the most amazing local businesses and venues in the city. A built up building like this will not only be an eyesore, but will also detract from the value and authenticity that the Ouseburn side of the Quayside holds. The Ouseburn’s connection to the Quayside should be left open, and not masked by yet another building taking up too much space compared to the size of the buildings around it. As well as this, the high rise building will allow for loss of privacy with windows viewing much of the local properties that already stand - and it will block the evening sun too! A further objection is the likelihood it will increase traffic flow, leading to even more air pollution in what should be a bright and fresh area by the waterside, as well parking difficulties! So many reasons to stand against the Malmo Quay development. I really hope you take this into consideration! Kind regards, Lauren Stewart 22 Debdon Gardens Ne65TJ | 08/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to the erection of the 18 storey block, It is totally out of keeping with the area and would spoil the feel of the Ouseburn area. The literal and psychological shadow a development of this size on the area would be enormous. | 08/02/2022 | Object |
| I would like to raise an objection to this development's application. Regarding - Hybrid Planning Application December 2021 Environmental Statement – Volume II – Chapter 13: Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment "Principles for Accommodating New Development" [pg 18] '▪ Maintain the scale, pattern and rhythm of the built quayside, responding to the reduction in building scale and height towards Ouseburn in the east. ▪ Ensure new built development does not compete for attention with local landmark buildings such as the CoOperative Wholesale Warehouse, St Ann's Church and Sailor's Bethel.' This proposed development does not comply with these requirements and will truly dominate the Quayside skyline - it simply does not fit within the context of the area and existing architecture and landscape surrounding this site. | 08/02/2022 | Object |
| I would like to raise an objection to this development's application. Regarding - Hybrid Planning Application December 2021 Environmental Statement – Volume II – Chapter 13: Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment "Principles for Accommodating New Development" [pg 18] '▪ Maintain the scale, pattern and rhythm of the built quayside, responding to the reduction in building scale and height towards Ouseburn in the east. ▪ Ensure new built development does not compete for attention with local landmark buildings such as the CoOperative Wholesale Warehouse, St Ann's Church and Sailor's Bethel.' This proposed development does not comply with these requirements and will truly dominate the Quayside skyline - it simply does not fit within the context of the area and existing architecture and landscape surrounding this site. | 08/02/2022 | Object |
| I’m writing to comment on planning application reference 2021/2404/01/EIA, specifically the ‘Malmo Quay’ development. As a new resident of Newcastle, I have some serious concerns. Clocking in at 1445 average annual hours of sunshine a year, Newcastle already sees significantly less sunshine than other areas in the UK, with the exception of the Yorkshire Dales. A structure like this housing development stands to literally cast a shadow upon Newcastle’s Quayside, which should serve as a focal point for what is, undeniably, a stunning city. We need all the sunshine we can get here in Newcastle- by casting a shadow on one of our finest heritage areas, this tower block will not only impact tourism (speaking as an Australian immigrant, I love going to the Quayside because it’s one of the only places in Newcastle I can sit outside and have a beer in the sun!), but also the health of those in the area by blocking access to a vital source of Vitamin D. Impending economic regeneration and development plans also seek to bring increased funding and jobs to the North East, and a rise in quality of life with them. To this end, I understand the need for new housing developments. However, the location of this apartment block indicates grotesque oversight on the part of the planners, with regard to the lack of supporting infrastructure necessary to support a housing complex of this size. Public transport links in this area are unfortunately limited. No buses pass the site currently, and the two nearest Metro stations are located over a kilometre away, with steep gradients involved which likely makes that journey inaccessible for those who are not able-bodied. Such a lack of accessibility with regard to public transport indicates that the majority of tower residents will be required to drive as their main means of transport. However, this is another huge oversight- only 18 parking spaces will be provided for the proposed 62 apartments the tower block will include. Local on-street parking in this area is already inadequate, to say the absolute least. And, with the 73 planned parking spaces on Spillers Wharf not even included in this application (aside from the fact that these 73 spaces will actually replace a current parking area- they’re not increasing parking availability!), it’s impossible to deny that this tower block development will leave its residents horribly unprepared to actually live in the area their residence is located in. At best, this tower block is completely unsuited to the area in which it’s suggested it be built. At worst, it’s horrendously inadequate, and an infrastructure nightmare waiting to happen. | 08/02/2022 | Object |
| I’m writing to comment on planning application reference 2021/2404/01/EIA, specifically the ‘Malmo Quay’ development. As a new resident of Newcastle, I have some serious concerns. Clocking in at 1445 average annual hours of sunshine a year, Newcastle already sees significantly less sunshine than other areas in the UK, with the exception of the Yorkshire Dales. A structure like this housing development stands to literally cast a shadow upon Newcastle’s Quayside, which should serve as a focal point for what is, undeniably, a stunning city. We need all the sunshine we can get here in Newcastle- by casting a shadow on one of our finest heritage areas, this tower block will not only impact tourism (speaking as an Australian immigrant, I love going to the Quayside because it’s one of the only places in Newcastle I can sit outside and have a beer in the sun!), but also the health of those in the area by blocking access to a vital source of Vitamin D. Impending economic regeneration and development plans also seek to bring increased funding and jobs to the North East, and a rise in quality of life with them. To this end, I understand the need for new housing developments. However, the location of this apartment block indicates grotesque oversight on the part of the planners, with regard to the lack of supporting infrastructure necessary to support a housing complex of this size. Public transport links in this area are unfortunately limited. No buses pass the site currently, and the two nearest Metro stations are located over a kilometre away, with steep gradients involved which likely makes that journey inaccessible for those who are not able-bodied. Such a lack of accessibility with regard to public transport indicates that the majority of tower residents will be required to drive as their main means of transport. However, this is another huge oversight- only 18 parking spaces will be provided for the proposed 62 apartments the tower block will include. Local on-street parking in this area is already inadequate, to say the absolute least. And, with the 73 planned parking spaces on Spillers Wharf not even included in this application (aside from the fact that these 73 spaces will actually replace a current parking area- they’re not increasing parking availability!), it’s impossible to deny that this tower block development will leave its residents horribly unprepared to actually live in the area their residence is located in. At best, this tower block is completely unsuited to the area in which it’s suggested it be built. At worst, it’s horrendously inadequate, and an infrastructure nightmare waiting to happen. | 08/02/2022 | Object |
| As a small business owner and ardent supporter of the Ouseburn Valley I would like to raise my profound objection to this unnecessary, unsightly tower block and surrounding buildings. The Ouseburn did not become the cultural and artistic hotspot that it is today without a lot of hard work from members of the community over the years. Encouraging urban sprawl, unaffordable housing and commercialisation to mar this landscape is an offence to those people. The Ouseburn Valley was once the Industrial heart of the town for hundreds of years. After falling into disuse it was local people and local businesses who brought it back to life and made it so attractive to profiteering property developers who care little for maintaining Newcastle's cultural heritage. Introducing more overpriced housing into an area long known for its live music and social scene is an invitation for conflict between businesses and residents. I suggest the people considering this application spend a few days enjoying the Ouseburn as it is now and consider whether it would be benefited by an 18 storey tower block in an area of primarily low rise buildings. PfP Igloo are simply contributing to the gentrification of the Ouseburn Valley, when it's neighbouring Byker is in sore need of investment. | 08/02/2022 | Object |
| As a small business owner and ardent supporter of the Ouseburn Valley I would like to raise my profound objection to this unnecessary, unsightly tower block and surrounding buildings. The Ouseburn did not become the cultural and artistic hotspot that it is today without a lot of hard work from members of the community over the years. Encouraging urban sprawl, unaffordable housing and commercialisation to mar this landscape is an offence to those people. The Ouseburn Valley was once the Industrial heart of the town for hundreds of years. After falling into disuse it was local people and local businesses who brought it back to life and made it so attractive to profiteering property developers who care little for maintaining Newcastle's cultural heritage. Introducing more overpriced housing into an area long known for its live music and social scene is an invitation for conflict between businesses and residents. I suggest the people considering this application spend a few days enjoying the Ouseburn as it is now and consider whether it would be benefited by an 18 storey tower block in an area of primarily low rise buildings. PfP Igloo are simply contributing to the gentrification of the Ouseburn Valley, when it's neighbouring Byker is in sore need of investment. | 08/02/2022 | Object |
| 9 February 2022 46 St Anns Quay 4 St Anns Street Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 2DJ Dear Sir or Madam: The purpose of this letter is to oppose the proposed development at Malmo Quay. My reason is simple. The proposed tower, at 18 stories, is simply too tall and too massive for the neighborhood. I understand the tallest residential building on the Newcastle bank of the Quayside is nine stories tall. This proposed 18 story tower will restrict views of the River Tyne. It will blight the riverscape, currently one of the most beautiful locations in the City of Newcastle, enjoyed by pedestrians, near and far. I have heard two arguments in favor of the 18-story tower. The first is that this particular lot is extremely difficult to build on. Well, if the developer has found a way to build an 18-story tower, a nine-story tower would be easier to build. The second is that the developer needs to go up 18 stories to enable this project to be financially justified. This may or may not be true. Even if this is true, this is the concern of the developer, not the residents of Newcastle upon Tyne. Simple put, doing nothing with the land is a fantastic option. Personally, I can’t think of a better location for a small, urban, riverside park. I appreciate that there is a housing shortage throughout the United Kingdom, including Newcastle. However, the mouth of the Ouseburn tributary and the greater Quayside are unique, special and they warrant protection from unfortunate development and its lasting consequences. Best regards, Bradford Anderson Reference 2021/2404/01/EIA | 09/02/2022 | Object |
| Hi this is to object to the terrible 18 storey building that is proposed at Malmo quay, I live in the area and this will totally overwhelm all the other buildings , the proposed tower is not in keeping with the area will be an eye sore on the quayside. It totally goes against any of the tall buildings policy for the area. The design of the building is poor and blank tower totally out of character of the historic quayside area. What about the transport links and car parking and infrastructure to support all these extra families. The area has been in its current form for nearly 20 years and is established as a community building towers in the area will spoil all that, please build something that is low rise in the centre of all our properties . | 09/02/2022 | Object |
| NOISE See “Noise and Vibration Technical Appendix - 1007345-CDL-XX-XX-RP-AS-45200 - Rev P01” in the application. This document is either deliberately misleading or incompetently written as regards the noise impact modelling of “events” at the Tyne Bar. Page 10 (second from last page) purports to show the impact of noise from an indoor event on the facades of the Malmo development. There is NO modelling shown at all for the louder outdoor events. If the plans are passed using this modelling it is likely that outdoor events will be no longer possible as new residents will complain of noise. The events at the Tyne Bar are an integral part of the special Ouseburn culture. PARKING Council policy recommends 94 parking places at the Malmo site and 28 at the Spillers site. There are a mere 16 places at the Malmo site which is totally inadequate for the number of proposed residents. This will inevitably cause parking problems in the surrounding area. Travel Plan There is only 1 local bus service (Q3) with bus stops about 400m away up a steep hill. (The bus stop shown on the quayside to the West is no longer in use). For elderly or disabled residents this will be very difficult. DESIGN The Malmo block is out of keeping with the surroundings and the views of the riverside from the Quayside and St Lawrence are spoilt. Have a look at The Tyne Gorge Study 2003 (pages 84 -87) where this is made plain. The whole development is a prime example of “over-massing” and does nothing to enhance the area. FINANCE The developers say that they need the tower block to make the development profitable. They also say they can’t have any affordable housing as it isn’t profitable. The site requires approximately £4.25m of government (taxpayer’s) money to divert sewers etc. so that the tower block can be built. It would be much better if the £4.25m was used to prepare a much larger brownfield site for housing elsewhere in the city. The Planning system is not there to facilitate the profitability of any developer, it is there to ensure developments are in the right place with the right design. This development isn’t. Reject this application. | 09/02/2022 | Object |
| I write to object to this wholly inappropriate and egregious development, specifically the tower block. It is entirely out of character for this unique part of Newcastle, will dominate the skyline and has the potential to permanently and negatively impact on this vibrant neighbourhood. Great work has been done in sympathetically regenerating the Ouseburn area in recent years, providing a significant cultural, commercial and residential hub that is a credit to Newcastle. Please do not undo all that good work by approving this development. It is self-evident that the infrastructure to support such a development is not in place and the development would place excessive strain on local roads, pavements and the (inter-)nationally important C2C cycleway and Hadrian's Wall Path, both of which pass immediately next to this tower. There are numerous examples of unsympathetic high rise developments in the North of England | 09/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to the Malmo / Spillers Hybrid planning application. The proposals do not safeguard nor enhance the unique landscape of the Quayside and Ouseburn valley, with inappropriate design, a scale and mass balance that fails to integrate with the exist urban context, and critically fails to adhere to the policy principles defined by the River Tyne Gorge Policy. The Malmo proposal has a significant overweight proportion of housing compared to Spillers, highlighted by the Tower Block which fails on all aspects to integrate with the existing urban context of the historic buildings and any of the more recent developments. Furthermore the Tower Block will be built using unsustainable materials of steel, concrete, brick & block, again contrary to Newcastle City Council stated ambitions to promote the sustainable built environment. The existing valued community facilities will be downgraded as a consequence of this proposal, most significantly with the demolition of the existing Cycle Hub on Spillers Quay. This building is actively used as a point of community gathering, akin to a 'Village Hall' facility. Indeed, the Developers have used the Cycle Hub over the last 7 years as a venue to talk to the local Community. The Cycle Hub is also a home for 3 successful SMEs, which enhance the local employment, recreational and wellbeing potential in the community. Whilst the application offers to replace the Cycle Hub facility on the West Bank of the Ouseburn, it is on a much smaller scale, which will be to the detriment of all 3 SMEs future prospects, and even their continued existence. The retention of the existing Cycle Hub will help to retain a mixed age of buildings with this area of Quayside/Ouseburn, which is already recognised as important with Planning policy. It must also be remembered that the Cycle Hub was built with public money; and the local community have the right to retain this vibrant community facility. The resulting impact of such large scale, disproportional additional housing in the location, will include significant increases in motor traffic hazards in an already congested area, which through existing Newcastle City Council policy is prioritising pedestrian and cycle use. | 09/02/2022 | Object |
| I am writing to strongly object against the application. The current cycle hub is a beautiful building and plays such a significant role in the current context. Why is this being demolished and then replaced with another cycle hub? Surely this is the last thing you want to do, considering that we are all moving towards being more sustainable? The scale of the development is shocking and unjustifiable. It does not sit correctly with the current context, and disturbs one of the most beautiful views we have in the north east. The quayside would benefit more green space and not more building complex. | 09/02/2022 | Object |
| The 18 storey tower is obviously against the Tyne Gorge study and Tall Buildings Policy for the area and destroys the look of our iconic riverside. | 09/02/2022 | Object |
| Hello. I personally feel this plan would be an insult to the eyes of the people of Newcastle and especially the people who live in the Ouseburn area. Who is going to benefit from this tower block, the builders and the few rich enough to afford the prices of flats. The view of the Tyne should be for the benefit the many not the elite few. I object to the design and the concept. It doesn’t add anything to the community and as a council I think you should read the room and listen to the mood music. For me personally I think it would be a mistake to let this build go through. Thank you for your time Yours sincerely David Hall | 09/02/2022 | Object |
| Hello. I personally feel this plan would be an insult to the eyes of the people of Newcastle and especially the people who live in the Ouseburn area. Who is going to benefit from this tower block, the builders and the few rich enough to afford the prices of flats. The view of the Tyne should be for the benefit the many not the elite few. I object to the design and the concept. It doesn’t add anything to the community and as a council I think you should read the room and listen to the mood music. For me personally I think it would be a mistake to let this build go through. Thank you for your time Yours sincerely David Hall | 09/02/2022 | Object |
| Whilst we understand the need for brown field housing development, we feel that the current plan for an eighteen storey tower block on this site is not in keeping with the local vernacular; design of housing and retail space in the iconic Ouseburn valley has so far been in keeping with the industrial heritage of the area. The tower block will detrimentally alter the river skyline vista and have a negative impact on the character of the Ouseburn Valley which could affect visitor numbers and the economic benefits to the numerous independent businesses in this vibrant urban hub. | 09/02/2022 | Object |
| Whilst we understand the need for brown field housing development, we feel that the current plan for an eighteen storey tower block on this site is not in keeping with the local vernacular; design of housing and retail space in the iconic Ouseburn valley has so far been in keeping with the industrial heritage of the area. The tower block will detrimentally alter the river skyline vista and have a negative impact on the character of the Ouseburn Valley which could affect visitor numbers and the economic benefits to the numerous independent businesses in this vibrant urban hub. | 09/02/2022 | Object |
| I very much have HUGE objections over this proposed building establishment. I am deeply concerned of the physical environmental impact this deeply unsightly proposition will have on the local area, ruining the incredible views and scenery of the beautiful quayside. the proposed project is not in keeping with any of the surrounding area and quite frankly is disgusting. I am furthermore also deeply concerned of the inevitable detrimental impact on this building to the local long established businesses such as Tyne bar, free trade inn, etc. who will have their classic and well loved atmosphere and views ruined. I am also hugely concerned about how the number of homes does not match with the proposed parking provision. Parking in the ouseburn area is already challenging enough, it doesn’t need to get worse. This will also attract more car crime to the area as cars are left in less secure places just so people can park near to home/work/their local pub. This proposition has no consideration for the local residents and is an eyesore. It is not welcome in the ouseburn. | 09/02/2022 | Object |
| This will be an eyesore on the quayside and is wholly unnecessary. The negatives far outweigh any benefits from yet another block of apartments. This is by far one of the most aesthetically unappealing blocks that could be considered for such an iconic quayside. Will do far more harm than good. Please do not allow this to go ahead. | 09/02/2022 | Object |
| The qualities that make the area appealing to a developer of this sort are the very same that will vanish if the Malmö development goes ahead. The Ouseburn infrastructure cannot support this sort of unscrupulous developing, and a site of historic cultural importance will be lost, as so far as I can see no provisions have been put in place to protect the venues or current residents of the area from this brazen monstrosity. Please reconsider. The cultural impact of the Ouseburn is deeper and further reaching than any quick buck there is to be had from PfP Igloo. This is not regeneration. | 09/02/2022 | Object |
| Dear Mrs Young, Objection to Planning Application 2021/2404/01/EIA Marble Beers Ltd (Marble Beers) have a relationship with the Free Trade Inn, St. Lawrence Road Byker, NE6 1AP as well as other several of the other pubs and bars of the Ouseburn (including Tyne Bar, Cumberland & Cluny). We understand the importance of new development and that redevelopment can bring much needed homes and jobs. However having studied the plans we sadly must object to the planning application on the following basis: • The size and scale of the development is out of keeping with surrounding buildings – it will harm the character of the area • The scale of the proposals will harm non designated heritage assets, including the setting and character of the area, around the Free Trade Inn • The proposals are likely to result in loss of daylight and sunlight to the Free Trade Inn and Tyne Bar pubs which both have long established rights to light • There is insufficient parking proposed for a development of this scale given the existing public transport options in the area. There will likely be a significant impact with increased demand for on street parking in the local area to the detriment of existing residents and business • Views in, around and along the river are going to change as a result of the development with the resultant change in outlook and appreciation of open space, which is an amenity, going to be significantly reduced. This will impact on many local people as well as visitors and businesses. Overall we suggest that the scale and size of development proposed is too great and its current form should be refused. We would offer that perhaps redevelopment more akin to the redevelopment of the dock area at the Eastern Amsterdam docks is considered here; the Borneo Sporenburg development at the eastern docks of Amsterdam provides high density development but in a high quality way over a maximum of five levels: https://www.west8.com/projects/borneo_sporenburg/ Yours sincerely, Jan Rogers, Marble Beers Ltd | 09/02/2022 | Object |
| Dear Mrs Young, Objection to Planning Application 2021/2404/01/EIA Marble Beers Ltd (Marble Beers) have a relationship with the Free Trade Inn, St. Lawrence Road Byker, NE6 1AP as well as other several of the other pubs and bars of the Ouseburn (including Tyne Bar, Cumberland & Cluny). We understand the importance of new development and that redevelopment can bring much needed homes and jobs. However having studied the plans we sadly must object to the planning application on the following basis: • The size and scale of the development is out of keeping with surrounding buildings – it will harm the character of the area • The scale of the proposals will harm non designated heritage assets, including the setting and character of the area, around the Free Trade Inn • The proposals are likely to result in loss of daylight and sunlight to the Free Trade Inn and Tyne Bar pubs which both have long established rights to light • There is insufficient parking proposed for a development of this scale given the existing public transport options in the area. There will likely be a significant impact with increased demand for on street parking in the local area to the detriment of existing residents and business • Views in, around and along the river are going to change as a result of the development with the resultant change in outlook and appreciation of open space, which is an amenity, going to be significantly reduced. This will impact on many local people as well as visitors and businesses. Overall we suggest that the scale and size of development proposed is too great and its current form should be refused. We would offer that perhaps redevelopment more akin to the redevelopment of the dock area at the Eastern Amsterdam docks is considered here; the Borneo Sporenburg development at the eastern docks of Amsterdam provides high density development but in a high quality way over a maximum of five levels: https://www.west8.com/projects/borneo_sporenburg/ Yours sincerely, Jan Rogers, Marble Beers Ltd | 09/02/2022 | Object |
| The development is entirely in conflict with the local area, impacting both businesses and residential, in its design and size. The impact on existing local business would be detrimental, as it would to the appeal of the area for cyclists and pedestrians who use the route. As a local resident who walks along the quayside route every day with my infant child, this development would render the route unsafe. There is woeful parking opportunity as it is for the flats in existence, such a development would make the surrounding roads and paths dangerously over crowded. Regeneration of the Ouseburn area has been suitably handled until now but this development is ill thought out and opportunistic, with greater negative impact to the character that makes Ouseburn what it is- a safe environment for young families. | 09/02/2022 | Object |
| I wholly object the to proposal of the Malmo Quay Development 2021/2404/01/EIA. Proposal is not inkeeping with the atmosphere of Ouseburn/Quayside. Does not respect or enhance the local heritage of Ouseburn area. Visual pollution, blocking sunlight and casting a shadow over buildings/businesses already in the area (e.g. Free Trade Inn and Tyne Bar). Public transport and parking will be completely inadequate with the Malmo Quay Proposal, 18 parking spaces provided for 62 new apartments with very little public transport access is frankly ridiculous. Finally, the 18-storey tower block proposed as part of this development is a complete eye-sore and ruins the aesthetic of the local area. | 09/02/2022 | Object |
| You will break the hearts of generations who have The Free Trade as their favourite pub, like my dad. We take visitors there to show off our beautiful city. This would be an absolute disaster for the local people. Choose another site please. | 09/02/2022 | Object |
| Name: Ms Kathryn Bauer (06.03.1973) Owner occupier of 76 Mariners Wharf, Quayside, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, NE1 2BJ Reference: 2021/2404/01/EIA I wish to object to the hybrid planning application for Malmo Quay / Spillers Quay. While I am not against development on these sites, it needs to be appropriate for the topography, infrastructure and also respectful of existing landmarks and the historical and cultural heritage of the local and wider Newcastle community. I believe that the existing application goes against this in a number of aspects. • Hybrid application: it is not possible to judge both sites together as insufficient information is provided for the Spillers Quay section. This is therefore an unbalanced application. • Design: the architectural designs of the tower and low-level buildings proposed for Malmo Quay do not reflect the non-angular architecture or colours of the residential, commercial and listed buildings in the immediate vicinity on the river Tyne. Any proposed design should be prioritized to fit in with this area since it is not physically joined to the Ouseburn (Steenbergs, Malings) developments, which cannot be seen from the Quayside. • Density: there is a disproportionately high number of dwellings designated to Malmo Quay (postcode NE1). The developer has already expressed that the Malmo Quay site is difficult to build on due to groundwork constraints and the sewage building, therefore putting a high number of dwellings on this site contradicts this and must be influenced by financial motivation rather than finding the most appropriate solution. • Scale and mass: the scale and massing of the 18-storey tower is significantly out-of-proportion and character to any other building in the vicinity. It will dominate the surroundings and will visually and physically dwarf all buildings along the Quayside, in particular those immediately next to and behind it. I have concerns that it will overshadow and disrupt daylight for Mariners Wharf Block 3 as well as set a precedent for future tall buildings along the Tyne that detract from the Baltic and the bridges. The proposed tower will not provide continuity with the current skyline and is an eye-sore that will be seen from far beyond Newcastle City Centre. • Impact on landscape & landmarks: the new development will dominate the skyline and obscure heritage buildings and the cherished landmark Free Trade Inn from being seen from the Quayside, from the Millennium Bridge and from Gateshead Quays. As well as obscure views from heritage buildings Hotel du Vin and former Ouseburn School, Albion Row. The tower goes against council policy and studies including the Tyne Gorge study and Tall Buildings Policy. It does not appear that preserving the openness of the current site to the River Tyne and Ouseburn and its environmental benefits have been considered in what is such a high-density housing and commercial proposal. • Loss of privacy & overshadowing: As a leaseholder and occupant of one of the Mariners Wharf Block 3 flats, I have severe concerns that my property on the 3rd and 4th floor and its balconies will be overlooked by residents in the townhouses. With the current plans, there will be significant loss of privacy for residents in the eastern end of Block 3 immediately next to the tower, as well as significant disruption to incoming natural light. • Means of access / traffic generation: the narrow “Quayside” road is single-lane and already heavily used by cars and other vehicles avoiding the more congested City Road. Cars here rarely travel within the specified speed limit and with the narrow footpath it is already a dangerous road for pedestrians and cyclists. The high number of dwellings associated with the proposed development will increase traffic use significantly, resulting in additional noise and disturbance for local residents as well as increased pollution due to the narrow funnelling of exhaust fumes. • Transport: There is currently only one bus service for the Quayside. This is insufficient for the high number of residents that will move to the area with the current proposal. The cycle route is part of the National Cycle Network and much-used by locals and visitors. I believe that the proposed development will impact on the cycling infrastructure and accessibility to the waterfront. • Parking: The proposed parking barn (multi-storey carpark) for residents is too far away from the Malmo Quay site to be a safe, accessible place for residents. This part of the Quayside is subject to a lot of anti-social behaviour / loitering groups and there will need to be considerable investment in lighting and CCTV in order to make it feel safe for residents. The developer has indicated that the parking barn will not be available for a few years after Malmo Quay completion. The current parking proposals are therefore inadequate. • Sustainability: Newcastle is aiming to become one of Europe’s top 100 climate-neutral & smart cities. In the detailed Malmo Quay development proposals, insufficient consideration is given to supporting a climate-neutral, environmentally-considerate building/public realm. Developments that address government and local climate-related targets should integrate substantial greenery and consider green planted roofing, living wall coverings, significant planted areas etc. in order to mitigate climate and emission impact. The current proposal only includes limited PV panels as a concession to renewable energy. There will also be a high proportion of concrete / paved areas with their high environmental impact considering the water and energy use of the raw materials and production. Existing grass areas will be destroyed. • Crime prevention / community safety: as stated in the previous point on parking, considerable investment will be needed in order to ensure a safe environment in which to cycle and walk in the area and surrounding road when it is dark. This is already a problem for Mariners Wharf residents. • Noise & disturbance: because the aim is to provide residential dwellings that will extend the current residential Mariners Wharf provision, in order to limit noise and improve safety, I oppose the inclusion of commercial facilities or public realm space in any new development without restrictions on evening / night-time use in place. Also, based on my experience of living at Mariners Wharf, CCTV provision should be ensured. • Impact on community: the Ouseburn is a unique location in Newcastle, with access to the open riverfront, nature and to the Cycle Hub valued by residents from all over the city and beyond. I believe that the current Malmo and Spillers Quays proposed developments will restrict local access to enjoying the riverside. Also, the current proposal to relocate the Cycle Hub to a significantly smaller building will severely restrict possibilities for local people to make use of the facilities, including the local community disabled cycling groups. Destruction of the current building is loss of an important cultural and physical landmark from the Quayside / Ouseburn. Thank you for considering my objection. I look forward to seeing future proposals for development with higher priority given to conserving the natural environment and community spirit. | 09/02/2022 | Object |
| An 18 storey development will be out of keeping with the existing buildings along the quayside and will block views from key locations. The tower block will be visible in many views of the iconic newcastle quayside and skyline, changing them negatively and significantly. | 09/02/2022 | Object |
| Object, will totally ruin the quayside it’s a beautiful area. Too beautiful for a 18 storey block of apartments! I think more than enough down there | 09/02/2022 | Object |
| - Very frankly it would be madness to approve a development for all the reasons outlined in the Tyne Gorge study and the local Tall Buildings Policy. Any planning official approving this development would forever have the reputational stain of a lack of integrity and judgement to go against previously accepted policies. - The proposed development is completely out of character with all surrounding buildings and will dominate the landscape in an inappropriate and unattractive way. as the proposed building is so excessively high that it will be a blot on the landscape. - The car parking is inadequate forcing residents to congest other areas in search of parking spaces. - There is a very strong local opposition to these proposals as it will inappropriately change the local community from an aesthetic and practical perspective with regard to excess of cars, local parking in an already busy area and inevitable congestion. | 09/02/2022 | Object |
| - Very frankly it would be madness to approve a development for all the reasons outlined in the Tyne Gorge study and the local Tall Buildings Policy. Any planning official approving this development would forever have the reputational stain of a lack of integrity and judgement to go against previously accepted policies. - The proposed development is completely out of character with all surrounding buildings and will dominate the landscape in an inappropriate and unattractive way. as the proposed building is so excessively high that it will be a blot on the landscape. - The car parking is inadequate forcing residents to congest other areas in search of parking spaces. - There is a very strong local opposition to these proposals as it will inappropriately change the local community from an aesthetic and practical perspective with regard to excess of cars, local parking in an already busy area and inevitable congestion. | 09/02/2022 | Object |
| - Very frankly it would be madness to approve a development for all the reasons outlined in the Tyne Gorge study and the local Tall Buildings Policy. Any planning official approving this development would forever have the reputational stain of a lack of integrity and judgement to go against previously accepted policies. - The proposed development is completely out of character with all surrounding buildings and will dominate the landscape in an inappropriate and unattractive way. as the proposed building is so excessively high that it will be a blot on the landscape. - The car parking is inadequate forcing residents to congest other areas in search of parking spaces. - There is a very strong local opposition to these proposals as it will inappropriately change the local community from an aesthetic and practical perspective with regard to excess of cars, local parking in an already busy area and inevitable congestion. | 09/02/2022 | Object |
| This proposed development is totally out of character with the surrounding area. The height of the development means it would severely alter the views of one of the cities iconic scenes. As I understand previous developments have had height limits to preserve this, why isn't this the case? The development is on a major cycle route the new development would increase traffic in that area significantly potentially making this route less safe for cyclist and pedestrians. | 09/02/2022 | Object |
| As a local resident in the Ouseburn I support this application. The area has been too empty for far too long and needs a development like this. Local shop units remain empty due to lack of footfall and this development would make more local independent shops viable. | 09/02/2022 | Support |
| I have worked in the Ouseburn for 15 years and it is my favorite areas of the city with a great community feel and a fantastic range of small business. The proposed development is not at all in keeping with the surrounding area and the scale of the high rise would dominate the area and overshadow the surrounding businesses and residential blocks. With the reduced parking at Spillers Quay and the Q2 bus no longer servicing this part of the quayside there will also be access and parking issues with residents inevitably taking up the few parking spaces. The new development also does not contain a suitable site for the existing Cycle Hub (including the cafe, bike rental business and office space) which will be pulled down with the redevelopment of Spillers Quay. The Cycle Hub is much more in keeping with the Ouseburn community. Replacing its focus on sustainable transport as a means to visit the area with a residential block of this scale will further compound the above issues. | 10/02/2022 | Object |
| I am a Heaton resident. Myself and my family spend a significant amount of our leisure time in ouseburn. I am concerned at the scale of the 18 storey tower and also it's appearance as a homogenous rectangular block it will dominate the local area. It is not sensitive to the character or design of the smaller (some listed) buildings around it. I have also noticed the number of parking spaces provided do not seem sufficient for the amount of residents. This is a well used and important cycle route. Excess on street parking and demolition of the cycle hub and replacement with a smaller version will impact on the ease of cycling here- and seems at odds with Newcastle Council's safer streets and greener transport initiatives elsewhere in the city. | 10/02/2022 | Object |
| As a local resident (NE12BN) I would like to strongly object to the Malmo quay plans for a number of reasons. I believe the plans are contrary to the Council and central governments own planning policies in that they do not show sufficient biodiversity net gain. Precious habitats for endanggd species like hedgehogs which I have regularly seen in the area will be damaged and insufficient mitigation is provided. The size, appearance, layout and density of the proposed development is disproportionate. It will cause a damage to the culture and heritage of the Ouseburn, and the high density of housing will cause problems of traffic, noise, antisocial behaviour and community safety. The tall tower will block daylight to the adjacent area causing long shadows. The traffic generated by the development will be large and have a significant on the nearby roads which are narrow and often busy with pedestrians and cyclists. Insufficient parking is provided which will cause issues for nearby residents and businesses. The associated traffic will also increase noise pollution and air pollution. The development will increase flood risk by reducing surface and rain water drainage. The development brings no benefits to the local community in terms of provision of outdoor space, amenity or public access. Instead it damages historic views of and from the Tyne, and causes a whole wealth of issues as listed above - it has no merit and should not be granted planning permission. | 10/02/2022 | Object |
| To whom it may concern, I strongly object to the Malmo Quays development, 2021/2404/01/EIA. As much as I believe that Newcastle is in desperate need of more affordable and family housing, I strongly disagree that this kind of housing is the answer, nor do I think it has any intention of being targeted at those who need housing the most. Cosmetically I believe it looks inappropriate in design for the area; when specifically thinking of the tower block - there are no other high-rise buildings in that area and the size of the development seems not to be in-keeping with Ouseburn at all, given its home to various buildings of historical significance such as Ouseburn School, the Toffee Factory, the Tyne Bar, Glasshouse Bridge etc.. Malmo Quay does not appear to have taken any of these design elements into account, and from the pictures I have seen the entire development appears to be completely out of place. Ouseburn is full of old, repurposed industrial buildings, and this could not be further from that ethos. The tower block is so tall, and its size does not seem to fit the size and orientation of any other buildings nearby. Will it also not cause a giant shadow over other properties in the area, and is it being built in an area of significant flood risk? I have certainly waded and cycled through water in that area in recent history. Ouseburn has cultivated itself as a hub for art, socialising, and independent businesses for the last 25 years or so (or longer!), and this development seems to be completely outside of that ethos. The pubs in Ouseburn (for this development, mainly the Tyne the Free Trade would be affected) are the heart and soul of the Ouseburn and contribute so much to the area, both culturally and commercially/economically. The Tyne Bar regularly hosts outdoor music, and the Free Trade has a large beer garden which would be situated near to the development, and I’d imagine that both would cause substantial noise complaints from residents, which would be really hard to deal with when simply trying to live in your home. Additionally, for each pub to lose/restrict parts of their businesses due to complaints would be a real loss to Ouseburn, not to mention crippling businesses that have experienced so much loss due to Covid-19 and who the council should be helping. As a regular user of both the cycle paths near the development and the Cycle Hub, I cannot describe the damage that the development would seem to do to these two things. Why tear down an excellent business such as the Cycle Hub, which is well-used, only to build it a little further up the road? Surely this is not in-keeping with any kind of environmentally friendly or sustainable practices and seems massively wasteful. It could also discourage cyclists from wanting to travel through a private housing estate on a well-used cycle commuter route, and is surely against the entire ethos of promoting cycling over commuting by car. It seems like it would be a bottle-neck for traffic, with seemingly no adequate parking from the plans that I have seen. And the area is not well served by buses, is situated at a dead end at one end of the development for private car transportation, and nearby metro stations (Byker and Manors) are a long way away up a hill, not to mention that getting to the city centre from here is up a steep hill or staircase. This seems incredibly limiting if not a total barrier to potential residents with any kind of mobility problems, which is odd. Would it not make more sense to turn the area into a good quality car/bike park and an area for green space and a nature habitat, rather than building housing which does not seem to fill a need for anyone other than rich people with no mobility issues? Yours sincerely, Gill Scott of 29 Seventh Avenue, Heaton, NE6 5YD. | 10/02/2022 | Object |
| I recognise that this is a brownfield site and therefore there are pressures to develop it. I suspect that the height of 18 storeys with 62 appartments is governed by the need to sell and fund the development, rather than actual demand. A much smaller development of residential and commercial mix would be more likely to enhance the area Concerns Access and quality of public space- I seem to remember that in a previous proposal, BEL valves planned a scenic riverside walk as far as St Peters; A waterfront walk for local s and visitors is desirable as is access to more green space, and the cycle route, Making areas private reduces accessibility Creation of a community Need families not an exclusive neighbourhood VISUALS The waterfront views to and from the bridges are iconic and unique for the whole of Newcastle as well as visitors arriving by road and rail. an 18 storey building would disrupt the skyline in all directions THE CYCLE HUB This was built with public funds so is part of the area heritage. It is a community amenity, used both for family and neighbourhood events Bicycle repairs support the cycle route 72 and the riverside cafe is a draw The relocation offered reduces the ability for this small enterprise to be viable and I believe Skedaddle will not have room Traffic and parking This will impact on the wider neighbourhood, especially if the Whey Eye happens and attracts visitors brining litter etc. This has already been demonstrat4ed to provide in adequate parking, - overspill being directed to St Peters, and lack of enough public transport, Both of these apply to the Malmo and Spillers plans. Not much to recommend the plans! | 10/02/2022 | Object |
| I'm concerned that this building would have a negative impact on the aesthetics of the surrounding area. Between Byker, Heaton, Sandyford and Shieldfield there are numerous properties that are sat on by landlords and companies that could instead be freed up to provide additional capacity. As well as this, despite the mention of a commercial unit(s) it is difficult to understand how this new property wouldn't suffer from a lack of proper provision in this area. The ouseburn area is also woefully underequipped to handle additional traffic which would in turn lead me to ask questions regarding the target demographics for these properties. Public transport does not link these areas well to relevant business parks or other areas beyond Shields Road which would itself be a large walk for some residents. I'm concerned that a majority of these properties will remain empty as speculative investments, become AirBnb style properties or be rented out to students at a higher price than most appartments/flats. This neither benefits residents nor inspires others to move to the area. Finally, does this project not push the area further down a slippery slope that will see the current direction of the quayside spill into ouseburn? How many more towers or ugly, shortsighted landmarks will fill the area to simultaneously justify this building and attract others? Other users have commented on more traditional buildings as an alternative. I can see the benefit of tower-style blocks, but why so large? | 10/02/2022 | Object |
| An 18 story building utterly inappropriate for the area, none of the surrounding building are anywhere near this height. The buildings appearance is also not in keeping with the surrounding area and will be an eyesore visible from not just Ouseburn but the whole of the Newcastle and Gateshead quayside. There is also insufficient parking provision for the 62 apartments and commercial units, 18 spaces is not enough given the number of households with multiple cars and the limited public transport provision at the location. | 10/02/2022 | Object |
| Objection to 2021/2404/01/EIA – Malmo Quay Development I have lived in Newcastle for 8 years now, and the Ouseburn is still my favourite area of the City. The Ouseburn has character, authenticity, and great businesses, I consider it a must visit for tourists to the area and a development of this size and scale serves no purpose. The Ouseburn and Quayside has many historical and listed buildings, these are invaluable elements to the area and bring a quality to the area that you could not build nowadays. This development would not add or enhance to the historic character of the area but overshadow it. Many people, like myself, visit the area for the authenticity, element of nature and to visit the great independent businesses. A development of this scale will impact the desire for people to visit, subsequently leading to small independent businesses failing due to lack of footfall and custom. It should be our Councils top priority to ensure small businesses succeed and continue to trade after the last 3 years, the building of this development would be detrimental to these businesses and locals of the area. The area is renowned for its great culture, music, food and child friendly activities, these will subsequently be impacted due to the influx of people due to the development. Whilst I understand the need for housing in the City, this development is not appropriate for the area and does not enhance the historical features of the Ouseburn and Quayside. Most weekends I walk my dog through Ouseburn and the Quayside, the nature, parks and natural light make for a nice walk. Often ending with a drink in one the local establishments. A development of this scale would impact hugely on this, it would have a massive impact on natural light and sunlight in the area, making it a less desirable place to walk the dog or spend an afternoon having a coffee. The Free Trade Inn has one of the best views of the City, and to block this with an unnecessary development would be a travesty and an extremely poor decision by our Council I 100% objectify to this development, the Ouseburn is an area of beauty and one that should be treasured by Newcastle and its Council. | 10/02/2022 | Object |
| Objection to 2021/2404/01/EIA – Malmo Quay Development I have lived in Newcastle for 8 years now, and the Ouseburn is still my favourite area of the City. The Ouseburn has character, authenticity, and great businesses, I consider it a must visit for tourists to the area and a development of this size and scale serves no purpose. The Ouseburn and Quayside has many historical and listed buildings, these are invaluable elements to the area and bring a quality to the area that you could not build nowadays. This development would not add or enhance to the historic character of the area but overshadow it. Many people, like myself, visit the area for the authenticity, element of nature and to visit the great independent businesses. A development of this scale will impact the desire for people to visit, subsequently leading to small independent businesses failing due to lack of footfall and custom. It should be our Councils top priority to ensure small businesses succeed and continue to trade after the last 3 years, the building of this development would be detrimental to these businesses and locals of the area. The area is renowned for its great culture, music, food and child friendly activities, these will subsequently be impacted due to the influx of people due to the development. Most weekends I walk my dog through Ouseburn and the Quayside, the nature, parks and natural light make for a nice walk. Often ending with a drink in one the local establishments. A development of this scale would impact hugely on this, it would have a massive impact on natural light and sunlight in the area, making it a less desirable place to walk the dog or spend an afternoon having a coffee. The views from the Free Trade Inn are some of the best views in Newcastle, and it would be a travesty if these views were ruined due to an unnecessary development and poor decision by our Council I 100% objectify to this development, the Ouseburn is an area of beauty and one that should be treasured by Newcastle and its Council. | 10/02/2022 | Object |
| We live in Mariners Wharf next to the proposed Malmo Quay Development and would like to object to this development on the following terms : 1. Although we like the companies other schemes, and the lower buildings look good, the 18 story tower is totally out of keeping with the rest of the area - it will dominate the rest of the buildings. The quality of the design is not iconic enough to justify its size and place. They can, I'm sure, do a lot better than this, and if the scheme becomes less viable because of a need to produce a better option, then perhaps it isnt the right scheme for the area. 2. The proposal includes 77 homes, but only includes 24 parking spaces. The Ouseburn and therefore the Malmo Quay area, attracts families rather than young single people who are less likely to have cars. There will simply be insufficient car parking space for this development with the result that cars will be parked all along Mariners Wharf. There are already problems with the road being narrowed when cars park alongside the wall in the permit spaces which will inevitably be exacerbated. 3. This proposal is only for Malmo Quay but the additional adjacant Spillers Quay proposal will simply exacerbate the lack of car parking, and put even more pressure on the limited space available. The two schemes should really be considered together. 4. The Q3 bus was removed from Mariners Wharf and so additional public transport links which might help with points 2 & 3 have not been considered. 5. There is a real lack of support for this scheme contrary to the two other existing schemes at Lower Steenburg Yard and at the Malings, which added to the Ouseburn valley, rather than detract from it. I really hope that the views of the existing residents are taken into account as we will have to live with the outcome. Lynn Hartley | 10/02/2022 | Object |
| Good morning, I'm lodging an objection based on the lack of affordable housing in this proposal, the lack of car parking spaces meaning more congestion in the area, the proximity of this development to a thriving area of pubs, bars and restaurants (meaning an increase in noise complaints and damaging their business) and finally the spoiling of the skyline of the quayside, particularly the view of the river from the top of the hill. Many thanks Mark | 10/02/2022 | Object |
| May Alice Galbraith-Olive, resident of 58 Balmoral Terrace Heaton NE6 5YA The scale of the project will have significant detrimental impact on the distinctive and historical area of Quayside and Ouseburn, the development on Malmo Quay does not take into account the historic heritage sites in Ouseburn. In addition the size of the building will over shadow exisitng buildings such as Tyne Bar and Free Trade Inn and cause loss of sunlight to residential properties as well. The design of the proposed building is not in keeping with the style of existing buildings in this area. Within the planning of this proposed building there is completely insufficient parking for residents meaning that it will create extreme pressure on the local transport infrastrucutre. | 10/02/2022 | Object |
| May Alice Galbraith-Olive, resident of 58 Balmoral Terrace Heaton NE6 5YA The scale of the project will have significant detrimental impact on the distinctive and historical area of Quayside and Ouseburn, the development on Malmo Quay does not take into account the historic heritage sites in Ouseburn. In addition the size of the building will over shadow exisitng buildings such as Tyne Bar and Free Trade Inn and cause loss of sunlight to residential properties as well. The design of the proposed building is not in keeping with the style of existing buildings in this area. Within the planning of this proposed building there is completely insufficient parking for residents meaning that it will create extreme pressure on the local transport infrastrucutre. | 10/02/2022 | Object |
| The Ouseburn has seen such progressive and innovative growth over the last 30 years, and is of huge cultural importance to so many local communities. This development massively threatens that, as well as blighting the beautiful skyline of the banks of the Tyne. The development proposed is going to completely overshadow everything that currently stands on the banks of the Ouseburn and surrounding areas. I am also concerned about the ecological and environmental impact this development will have. The council has done some great environmental work to restrict traffic, but this seems wholly at odds with that. The development will endanger the many cyclists that use the national cycle route, further pushing people to use their cars, which again is at odds of the council goals! Finally, the development is ugly and does not match the beautiful industrial buildings there. It would be devastating if this development is approved. Thank you for reading. | 10/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to the proposal in its current form for the following reasons: design should not be driven by financial reasons and in this case if the site is only suitable for residential development by inclusion of a large scale 18 story tower which is out of proportion for the area and does not fit in with the requirements of the Tyne Gorge Study, or the Tall Buildings Policy permission should be refused Traffic considerations are inadequate, the provision of only 24 parking spaces for 77 homes, where no doubt some residents will have two vehicles will result in parking being almost impossible with overflow to surrounding streets which are already busy It is obvious that there is a real feeling against the proposal in the surrounding community which must be considered Consideration should be given to creating a public amenity in this historic area. | 10/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to this planning application on the following grounds: - The Ouesburn area is becoming an increasingly popular tourist hotspot. The Malmo quay space is 'the mouth of the Ouse burn' and provides the perfect space for pop-up arts and cultural exhibitions, which will not be possible once it's covered in more housing. It is a short-sighted plan that doesn't consider how this area serves the local economy now and in future. - The proposed 18 story tower block is extremely unsightly and doesn't blend into the local landscape or architecture at all. This building will have a negative impact on light levels for many local residents and businesses. I believe this development will reduce tourism to the Ouseburn by distracting from other historic and listed building in the vicinity and making the area a less pleasant place to visit. Unlike some of the better development within the Ouseburn, it doesn't seem to take into account the architectural style of the area. - All this additional residential development will lead to an increase in road traffic along what is currently a busy pedestrian route, making it less pleasant for pedestrians and cyclists (between Ouesburn and quayside) Whilst I object to these elements of the plan, I believe the development of the Spillers Wharf area into low-rise housing is a good idea as this area is hidden away from the central tourist trail of the Ouseburn itself and features far less historic architecture nearby. | 10/02/2022 | Object |
| I live near to the proposed Malmo Quay Tower Block (2021/2404/01/EIA) and have concerns about the affect it would have on the area. The roads are already very busy & quite dangerous for children without the extra vehicles on the street. This concern is exacerbated by the plans showing there are only 18 parking spaces for the 62 apartments in the tower block meaning cars will be carelessly parked on street and further crowding them. The Ouseburn is a special and unique part of Newcastle's heritage and the garish design of the building is inappropriate and stands out like a sore thumb against the existing architecture. The recent Steensbergs Yard developments show that modern buildings can be worked into the area without upsetting existing residents, but Malmo Quay is a huge source of concern for locals. As an NE1 resident who lives within a 5 minute walk of the proposed site, I strongly object to the plans. | 10/02/2022 | Object |
| Application Reference Number: 2021/2207/01/DET Application Type: Detailed Application Proposal: Site remediation works as part of the government's housing infrastructure fund comprising grouting existing mine workings, site strip, levelling and capping works Applicant: Mr Mick Firth (Newcastle City Council - Major Projects) Agent: Mr Ian Cansfield (Cundall) Location: Land At Malmo Quay Quayside, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Ward: Ouseburn Parish / Community: Not Within A Parish Boundary Officer: Jill Young Decision Level: Delegated decision Application Status: Pending Consideration Received Date: 17-11-2021 Valid Date: 11-01-2022 Expiry Date: 08-03-2022 Extension Of Time: No Extension Of Time Due Date: Planning Performance Agreement: No Planning Performance Agreement Due Date: Proposed Committee Date: Actual Committee Date: Decision Issued Date: Decision: Appeal Reference: Appeal Status: Appeal External Decision: Appeal External Decision Date: Malmo Transport The developers reference this development as a ‘car light’ scheme , this is a fallacy. These apartments are not ‘affordable’ homes given where they are situated (prime location). Residents / owners are very likely to be one or two car owners. This raises a number of practical and safety issues as stated below. • Where will residents park their cars? The present use of the Car Park situated East of the existing Cycle Hub is very high already from both visitors and people working in the city. This does not provide any alternative parking for these developments nor will any new developments on the East of the present hub. • The likely increase in cars from the 77 new homes, the cycle hub and commercial units creates a potential for an unsafe environment for the many walkers who use this route, and of course those choosing to cycle for work and recreation. • As a cyclist who presently uses the Cycling Route 72, it is clear that this attracts a huge number of people every year to our city and plenty of casual cyclists too. The increase in traffic created by this development could be detrimental to their safety and wellbeing (I have concerns regarding air quality changes to the area). This does not fit well with Newcastle City Councils Cycling City Ambition to increase cycling and cycling provision. It should also be noted that not all cyclists use route 72 at this point, instead they choose to • Public transport links are also not adequate with a climb to bus stops and a distance to the nearest Metro. Facilities for Cycling We presently benefit from a fabulous Cycle Hub providing plenty of indoor and outdoor space for cyclists. The new proposals do not provide adequate space to replicate this provision. Whilst I accept that the tower block will not cast a shadow over the new Hub, due to its height and scale, the new development will overpower and loom over the other facilities, and surrounding businesses and residents homes creating an unpleasant environment. Tourism and architecture The Tyne Bar and The Free Trade Inn provide unique venues that attract many visitors to our city and provide beautiful space for residents to experience the river. Famous for their stunning views down the river, not simply to the bridges but also to the curve of the river and its beautiful quayside. This tower block development is totally inappropriate in size and scale (68 metres high) to the area and the existing culturally significant buildings nearby. It is architecturally ugly and has been developed with little concern in relation to the aesthetics and existing heritage and historic built environment. This is a unique site which should be developed for the benefit of those who live, work and visit our city. An opportunity to do this with care, concern and in an architecturally stunning way has been missed and if we allow this to go ahead, will never be achieved. If we are going to do this let’s do it with consideration to all, not just for the profit of the developers. Flood risk Whilst I am not an expert in Flood Management, I am aware that the River Tyne has flooded in the past. Does this pose a risk to the new cycle hub (presently on is on an elevated site)? | 11/02/2022 | Object |
| Application Reference Number: 2021/2404/01/EIA Malmo Quay Transport The developers reference this development as a ‘car light’ scheme , this is a fallacy. These apartments are not ‘affordable’ homes given where they are situated (prime location). Residents / owners are very likely to be one or two car owners. This raises a number of practical and safety issues as stated below. • Where will residents park their cars? The present use of the Car Park situated East of the existing Cycle Hub is very high already from both visitors and people working in the city. This does not provide any alternative parking for these developments nor will any new developments on the East of the present hub. • The likely increase in cars from the 77 new homes, the cycle hub and commercial units creates a potential for an unsafe environment for the many walkers who use this route, and of course those choosing to cycle for work and recreation. • As a cyclist who presently uses the Cycling Route 72, it is clear that this attracts a huge number of people every year to our city and plenty of casual cyclists too. The increase in traffic created by this development could be detrimental to their safety and wellbeing (I have concerns regarding air quality changes to the area). This does not fit well with Newcastle City Councils Cycling City Ambition to increase cycling and cycling provision. It should also be noted that not all cyclists use route 72 at this point, instead they choose to • Public transport links are also not adequate with a climb to bus stops and a distance to the nearest Metro. Facilities for Cycling We presently benefit from a fabulous Cycle Hub providing plenty of indoor and outdoor space for cyclists. The new proposals do not provide adequate space to replicate this provision. Whilst I accept that the tower block will not cast a shadow over the new Hub, due to its height and scale, the new development will overpower and loom over the other facilities, and surrounding businesses and residents homes creating an unpleasant environment. Tourism and architecture The Tyne Bar and The Free Trade Inn provide unique venues that attract many visitors to our city and provide beautiful space for residents to experience the river. Famous for their stunning views down the river, not simply to the bridges but also to the curve of the river and its beautiful quayside. This tower block development is totally inappropriate in size and scale (68 metres high) to the area and the existing culturally significant buildings nearby. It is architecturally ugly and has been developed with little concern in relation to the aesthetics and existing heritage and historic built environment. This is a unique site which should be developed for the benefit of those who live, work and visit our city. An opportunity to do this with care, concern and in an architecturally stunning way has been missed and if we allow this to go ahead, will never be achieved. If we are going to do this let’s do it with consideration to all, not just for the profit of the developers. Flood risk Whilst I am not an expert in Flood Management, I am aware that the River Tyne has flooded in the past. Does this pose a risk to the new cycle hub (presently on is on an elevated site)? | 11/02/2022 | Object |
| The Malmo Quay development is completely out of tone with the rest of Ouseburn Valley. Ouseburn is a place that is very community driven and the exploitation of what is viewed as a ‘trendy’ area is a terrible move for the council to allow. By allowing developers to capitalise on a place that is so well loved will kill the heart of this cultural hub in Newcastle. Areas that have regenerated themselves from the grass roots are incredibly rare and should be protected from capitalistic vultures that seek to gentrify the area and alienate the people communities that made Ouseburn what it is today. On that note the Ouseburn is a historic area and I worry what will happen to the historic buildings with a massive construction taking place nearby as well as how the project will impact air and noise pollution. The Ouseburn Valley is a very popular spot during the warmer weather and and sharp rise in noise and air pollution could deter people. All in all this project is extremely out of touch with the current themes in Ouseburn and what it is that people who use the space want. I urge Newcastle Council to reconsider this development and protect a cultural hub of the city. | 11/02/2022 | Object |
| I would like to raise serious concerns about the development of Malmo Quay. I am a local resident, and my concerns are thus: The Scale and massing of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for its location. The proposed design plans for this block do not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. The submitted plans for Malmo Quay appear to only show 18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block. This will be inadequate and guaranteed to put even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. The proposed 73 Parking Spaces on Spillers Wharf are not actually part of this application. Even then, at best they won't be available for at least 3-4 years, will also have to service the 76 apartments potentially being build there and there's a fully functioning carpark being removed to create that site. Public transport links are extremely limited in this area, with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. I hope these concerns will be considered seriously. | 11/02/2022 | Object |
| Malmo Quay planning ref 2021/2404/01/EIA The proposal for 77 residential units and circa 200 residents (beds) is a significant overdevelopment of this iconic site, that should not have been proposed and must be rejected. Size scale and volume of the proposal and the 18 storey 68m high TOWER BLOCK will dominate and overshadow the Quayside and the Ouseburn local area and the historic nature and appearance of the River Tyne riverscape and its iconic bridges. The massing of the heavy blocky design of the proposal will have an extremely detrimental effect on the varied (both in size and design) and distinctive historic buildings and structures of the Quayside and Ouseburn. The proposed development will be permanently extremely detrimental to the appearance, nature and feel of River Tyne riverscape and the Ouseburn historic area. The proposed development will be a BLOT ON THE LANDSCAPE. The proposal in its architectural mass size and height (68m) will severely impact the surrounding buildings, residents, and businesses, casting long large shadows and darkness over large areas removing permanently the feeling of light and space that is evocative of this area of the River Tyne and the Ouseburn. The proposed development does not sit well in the land and riverscape and does not complement or enhance this historic area and buildings. The design is of poor architectural quality - a series of stacked blocks and one very large block !!! - in bland basic appearance. The elevations of the tower block are particularly devoid of any architectural merit. The architectural design is a direct consequence of a development undertaken to maximise the number of units and subsequent maximisation on developers profit and has not considered in anyway a sympathetic design approach to the site. There has been no attempt to try to produce a quality of design that would be appropriate to this significant site at the east end of the Quayside. The materiality of the proposed structures and public areas appears poor of low quality and is a consequence of an approach to maximise developers returns for this site. An opportunity for an architecturally outstanding quality of design that this site and Newcastle City deserves is being missed on the back of developers profit and this opportunity will be lost and will never be available again. There is no provision for affordable housing in this proposal. It would be reasonable to expect that Newcastle City Council should require this. The site should be designed and developed for the benefit of the City of Newcastle and its residents and not a vehicle to provide maximum profits to developers. The developers state the proposal is a ‘car light’ scheme, this cannot be considered to be an accurate or realistic statement. There is no provision for ‘affordable’ homes given where they are situated (prime location). Residents are very likely to car owners. The proposal could accommodate circa 200 people which raises several questions about traffic safety, parking congestion and environmental pollution. The scheme is for 77 units which will enable occupation of circa 200 people there is a woefully inadequate provision for residents to park their cars. 18 is not adequate. The car park situated adjacent to existing Cycle Hub is very high already from both visitors and people working in the city and will not provide any alternative parking as this site could be developed out at a later date. The likely increase in cars from the 77 new homes with a potential occupancy of circa 200 people, the cycle hub and commercial units will create an unsafe environment for the many walkers and cyclists for work and recreation. Cycling Route 72 attracts a huge number of people. The increased traffic created by this development will be detrimental to their safety and wellbeing. Air quality changes to the area should be of a concern considering Newcastle councils concerns about this and their proposals to address. The significant increase in traffic that this proposal will lead to goes against Newcastle City Councils Cycling City Ambition to increase cycling and cycling provision. Public transport links are also not adequate with a climb to bus stops and a distance to the nearest Metro. The Cycle Hub currently provides plenty of indoor and outdoor space for cyclists, walkers, visitors, and businesses. The proposal does not provide adequate space to replicate this provision. The tower block due to its height 68m and scale, the new development will overpower and loom over the facilities and public realm creating an unpleasant environment. I am aware that the River Tyne has flooded in the past. This proposal will increase the risk of flooding and with circa 200 residents increase the risk of pollution to the river and the overloading of drainage systems and times of high water and rainfall. Which are happening even more often. | 11/02/2022 | Object |
| - The Scale and massing of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for it's location. - Quality of design; Quite obvious, but there's very little merit in a beige 18 story tower block in such a prominent position. Does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. - Parking; The submitted plans for Malmo Quay appear to only show 18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block, woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. *It's important to remember that the proposed 73 Parking Spaces on Spillers Wharf are not actually part of this application. Even then, at best they won't be available for at least 3-4 years, will also have to service the 76 apartments potentially being build there and there's a fully functioning carpark being removed to create that site * Accessibility - Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. | 11/02/2022 | Object |
| Reference 2021/2404/01/EIA Louise Richley Flat 50 St Ann’s Quay 4 St Ann’s Street Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 2DJ Objection I am writing to object to the development plans put forward for this site for the following key reasons; • Scale – The sheer scale, height and massing of the 18-storey tower is utterly inappropriate for this site. The renders of viewpoints shown specifically in appendix E are frankly shocking. They show the proposed tower to be unprecedented and out of context locationally. All surrounding buildings are significantly lower in height. The tower would have an overbearing and dominant impact on the character of the local area. • Detrimental impact on heritage – the site lies just south of the boundary of the Ouseburn Conservation Area and the height, scale and massing would have a significantly and adverse impact on the conservation area. It would be at odds with the scale of buildings within it, and it would detract from its significance. P54 of the Conservation Area Management Plan recognises the potential for harm to the conservation area from development immediately adjacent to it. The Tall Buildings SPD also recognises the impact that poorly sited tall buildings can have on historic environments: “Tall buildings should be sited in areas of the city that have minimal visual impact on sensitive historic environments. Retaining and enhancing key strategic views through the careful siting of tall buildings is a key objective.” Given the jarring visual impact the development of this scale would have, its harm would be significant, not only on the conservation area, but the important buildings within it. There are a number of buildings whose setting would be affected, including listed buildings, and undesignated heritage assets which are recognised by the Council as being important in terms of the contribution they make to the special character of the area. We disagree with the assessment of the level of harm caused in the Heritage Statement as being moderate adverse. The impact would be greater than this. • Traffic and parking – There is not enough car parking. 77 homes are being proposed in total with only 24 car parking spaces, (a ratio of 31%). This will force residents to park on surrounding streets. Transport links along the Quayside are poor anyway and this needs to be dealt with in relation to these proposals. • Biodiversity - Given the outline nature of the scheme in relation to Spillers Quay, and the quantum of development proposed, it is not clear whether it will be possible on this site to achieve biodiversity net gain in accordance with requirements. In addition, the Government is consulting on proposals to include brownfield sites in terms of the need to achieve net gain. No clear calculation is provided in the application in relation to the impacts on biodiversity and whether net gain can be achieved. In summary, although the Developer claims that the financial constraints of developing the site necessitate the inclusion of the 18-storey tower, this is not a reason in itself to go ahead with an inappropriate development. The result is very strong opposition from all surrounding properties and stakeholders in the Ouseburn and Quayside area. It would be very disappointing for the development of this last impressive plot on the Quayside to be met with universal negativity from all neighbouring stakeholders. | 11/02/2022 | Object |
| We are writing to express our objections to the application by PFP Igloo to develop Malmo Quay and Spillers Quay. We are ocal residents who have enjoyed along with our Children and grandchildren the legendary views of the river Tyne. The plans submitted to the council include a tower block, which if allowed to happen will be the biggest building on the Quayside and will dominate the skyline of the entire area, including the iconic views of the river Tyne which everyone is currently able to enjoy. This development threatens not only the impressive city vistas, including the most legendary view from the Free Trade Inn, but also threatens the wonderfully special, fragile community into which the Ouseburn has evolved. The tower block would impact on the rhythm of the Quayside buildings. The concept design plans show how it would tower over its surroundings and mark a massive change to the city's riverside scenery. The increase in parking would have a major impact on pedestrians and the national cycle route. This scheme offers no provision for affordable housing and is only viable to this developer by building the tower block. This prominent and important site deserves much better than what has been proposed. Lynn Lockhart and Rob Lockhart | 11/02/2022 | Object |
| We are writing to express our objections to the application by PFP Igloo to develop Malmo Quay and Spillers Quay. We are ocal residents who have enjoyed along with our Children and grandchildren the legendary views of the river Tyne. The plans submitted to the council include a tower block, which if allowed to happen will be the biggest building on the Quayside and will dominate the skyline of the entire area, including the iconic views of the river Tyne which everyone is currently able to enjoy. This development threatens not only the impressive city vistas, including the most legendary view from the Free Trade Inn, but also threatens the wonderfully special, fragile community into which the Ouseburn has evolved. The tower block would impact on the rhythm of the Quayside buildings. The concept design plans show how it would tower over its surroundings and mark a massive change to the city's riverside scenery. The increase in parking would have a major impact on pedestrians and the national cycle route. This scheme offers no provision for affordable housing and is only viable to this developer by building the tower block. This prominent and important site deserves much better than what has been proposed. Lynn Lockhart and Rob Lockhart | 11/02/2022 | Object |
| Can I please just outline a number of concerns/objections to the planned Malmo Quay development (2021/2404/01/EIA) - particularly around the planned tower of 62 flats. 1. Lack of empathy with the surrounding area: - the tower is out of step with the surrounding heritage area of the Ouseburn - both in design (very poor design - though I am aware that is not a Council consideration) and in height - it is also out of step with the recent developments of the area and Quayside (though the poor design of some recent housing around Ford Street seems to be reflected in the plans) - it will by far be the tallest building on the actual Quayside, overwhelming the area and visible from many parts of the city - it's location will impact views from and available natural light to local businesses - such as the famous Tyne Bar (especially to outside/venue areas) - in addition, it will have a significant impact on a number of iconic view; I am aware that impact on views seems to be ignored but it remains a factor in such developments. In particular, the view from the Tyne Bridge, the view from Gateshead and the incredibly famous view from the Free Trade Inn. The impact is from the Tower, mainly, but also potentially from the planned multi- storey houses (on both Malmo and on Spillers Quay) 2. Highway Safety/Policies/Guidelines: - there is no significant parking included for Malmo Quay and, looking at the outline request for Spillers Quay, insufficient to meet guidelines for the number of dwellings - given the target very well off residents, many will have multiple cars adding to the parking issue for themselves and other locals - this will lead to parking on local roads - which are already very limited in terms of access/throughput 3.Transport: - road links in the area are already congested so this may increase that - there is limited public transport access: limited buses, Metros are some way distant (and up very steep banks) 4. Other comments: - the Quayside and Ouseburn are iconic and famous areas of Newcastle, and make up key parts of famous city vistas - any developments which have a negative impact on these areas must be very carefully considered; impact on parking, road usage/congestion, skyline, available natural light, increased shadows. - in my view the Tower has the primary negative impact; it is difficult to object to housing development on an unused site - though planning dwellings of multiple storeys has some negative impact - if the Tower is required for the developers to make the large returns they want, then the proposal should be rejected; I cannot image anyone who regularly uses the Quayside/Ouseburn and who enjoys the riverside vista of our fabulous city would wish it to be built in its planned location Thank you, Mick Graham | 11/02/2022 | Object |
| As someone who loves Newcastle and the Ouseburn, please do not allow this tower block to be built. The regeneration of the Ouseburn has been fantastic, and the atmosphere of the area is wonderful. New houses in the area are not unwelcome, but a huge tower block which is not inkeeping with the rest of the area would be a terrible shame. Putting pressure on already limited parking and ruining views, I cannot see how this could possibly improve the Ouseburn, and would instead make it much worse. Please please do not allow this tower block to be constructed. | 11/02/2022 | Object |
| Application not in keeping with the aesthetic of the area, unnecessarily obtuse and out of proportion with existing surrounding structures. Furthermore it obstructs iconic Quayside views of historic and iconic bridges from the east end of the city. Application needs reducing to a non obtrusive and less invasive scale. | 11/02/2022 | Object |
| No objections to the lower level development however the tower is wholly unnecessary and completely out of keeping with the area, it is insensitive to the surrounding area, a ridiculous scale and shows a complete disregard for contextual application. It would be an absolute betrayal to the local community if this development were allowed to proceed. | 11/02/2022 | Object |
| I wish to object for the following reasons: The Scale and massing of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for it's location. - Quality of design; Quite obvious, but there's very little merit in a beige 18 story tower block in such a prominent position. Does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. - Parking; The submitted plans for Malmo Quay appear to only show 18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block, woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. *It's important to remember that the proposed 73 Parking Spaces on Spillers Wharf are not actually part of this application. Even then, at best they won't be available for at least 3-4 years, will also have to service the 76 apartments potentially being build there and there's a fully functioning carpark being removed to create that site * Accessibility - Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. We the residents of the area do not need or want it. | 11/02/2022 | Object |
| I want to register my objection to this proposed development. This building would ruin the vista of the quayside and is totally out of keeping with the existing buildings in the area. It is way too high and ugly and would spoil the area. | 12/02/2022 | Object |
| This would be an eye sore to the historic quayside of Newcastle. It would be a view spoiler and ruin the astethic and ambience of the ouseburn, the quayside and the up and coming hoults yard. This part of Newcastle is reliant on its charm and spots of beauty, this would complete destroy that charm and is not needed. There are no other sky scrapers in this side of town and would look completely out of place. It would be detrimental to small businesses like the Free Trade in and the Tyne bar. Please don't build this and keep the city and its quayside the picturesque spot that it is | 12/02/2022 | Object |
| This would be an eye sore to the historic quayside of Newcastle. It would be a view spoiler and ruin the astethic and ambience of the ouseburn, the quayside and the up and coming hoults yard. This part of Newcastle is reliant on its charm and spots of beauty, this would complete destroy that charm and is not needed. There are no other sky scrapers in this side of town and would look completely out of place. It would be detrimental to small businesses like the Free Trade in and the Tyne bar. Please don't build this and keep the city and its quayside the picturesque spot that it is | 12/02/2022 | Object |
| I think the erection of such a large block of flats is out of touch with the historical feel of the ouseburn. The tower would ruin the view along the quayside for everyone except those who live in the building. For the rest of us it’s an overpriced eye sore, generating little affordable housing, instead generating noise complaints about the cultural outputs of the ouseburn area. Given the proximity to the Tyne and ouseburn river, with sea levels rising, is it a good idea to be building homes on river banks at risk? As for demolishing a bicycle hub and erecting a 50ft wheel, someone with an ounce of sense and integrity for the city chuck this nonsense in the Tyne. | 12/02/2022 | Object |
| While I understand the need to develop these sites and the need to provide housing in the city, I wish to object to the building of the tower block at Malmo Quay. The high rise design is totally out of keeping with the local built environment and landforms. It will do nothing to enhance the area. I have seen, enjoyed and been proud to show off the development of Newcastle Quayside over the past decades and this will negatively impact the iconic views from virtually every angle. I recently walked along from the Swing Bridge to the Cycle Hub and was sad, that were the tower block to be built, it would pierce the world famous views of the Tyne Bridges the whole way along. Surely our city council will not grant permission for a development that would damage its global image? Unless there's a lot of pockets being lined along the way... In addition, the lack of parking with the proposed density of housing is bound to have an impact on local residents and businesses and will do nothing to enhance the experience of visitors to the many attractions of the Quayside and Ouseburn, as well as those completing the Hadrian's Path and cycleway - both high profile, prestigious national routes. Develop these post-industrial sites, by all means, but please, please, please ensure it will enhance the great work done in moving the area forward not detract from our world famous city's reputation. | 12/02/2022 | Object |
| While I understand the need to develop these sites and the need to provide housing in the city, I wish to object to the building of the tower block at Malmo Quay. The high rise design is totally out of keeping with the local built environment and landforms. It will do nothing to enhance the area. I have seen, enjoyed and been proud to show off the development of Newcastle Quayside over the past decades and this will negatively impact the iconic views from virtually every angle. I recently walked along from the Swing Bridge to the Cycle Hub and was sad, that were the tower block to be built, it would pierce the world famous views of the Tyne Bridges the whole way along. Surely our city council will not grant permission for a development that would damage its global image? Unless there's a lot of pockets being lined along the way... In addition, the lack of parking with the proposed density of housing is bound to have an impact on local residents and businesses and will do nothing to enhance the experience of visitors to the many attractions of the Quayside and Ouseburn, as well as those completing the Hadrian's Path and cycleway - both high profile, prestigious national routes. Develop these post-industrial sites, by all means, but please, please, please ensure it will enhance the great work done in moving the area forward not detract from our world famous city's reputation. | 12/02/2022 | Object |
| I am writing to object to the Malmo Quay buildings on three counts. Firstly the scale of the building is drastically out of keeping for the area. Secondly the design of the building. It is tragically ugly, and would further degrade the riverscape of Newcastle. Most of the buildings, especially the domestic buildings are woefully municipal. This building strikes me of being from a soviet era Estonian slum. Newcastle needs fine architecture especially at its historical and cultural heart. This combined with the sheers enormity of the proposed carbuncle would damage the cities standing. Put our heritage first. Finally the location on the important cycle route making it dangerous for commuters and visitors alike. The cycle route through this monolith needs priority. This application does not do this. Combined with the lack of proposed parking would mean cars littering the commuting facilities. I recall that a similar proposal was rejected in the past and that this proposal is more damaging to the Ouseburn area and the wider image of Newcastle with its poor design, frankly silly scale and inconsiderate placing for commuting infrastructure that it must be rejected. | 12/02/2022 | Object |
| I am writing to object to the Malmo Quay buildings on three counts. Firstly the scale of the building is drastically out of keeping for the area. Secondly the design of the building. It is tragically ugly, and would further degrade the riverscape of Newcastle. Most of the buildings, especially the domestic buildings are woefully municipal. This building strikes me of being from a soviet era Estonian slum. Newcastle needs fine architecture especially at its historical and cultural heart. This combined with the sheers enormity of the proposed carbuncle would damage the cities standing. Put our heritage first. Finally the location on the important cycle route making it dangerous for commuters and visitors alike. The cycle route through this monolith needs priority. This application does not do this. Combined with the lack of proposed parking would mean cars littering the commuting facilities. I recall that a similar proposal was rejected in the past and that this proposal is more damaging to the Ouseburn area and the wider image of Newcastle with its poor design, frankly silly scale and inconsiderate placing for commuting infrastructure that it must be rejected. | 12/02/2022 | Object |
| I am not opposed to developments as the right change can be beneficial. I am not opposed to tall buildings if they are in the right context, e.g. tall buildings in New York or the City of London work well with the surroundings. Having read most of the documents if not all of them, I am opposed to the proposed Malmo and Spillers Quays development and set out my reasons below: 1. Building Design a. The building design is officially a “Tall Building” and is defined in those terms within the application. That definition includes “…is significantly taller than the surrounding built fabric…”. This is most definitely true with the Malmo Quay tower design. The definition also includes if “…it breaks the skyline”, which it will do here as nothing else around it is anywhere near as tall. In London, where many buildings are multi-storey and therefore in keeping with each other, a tall building is defined as anything “…over 15 storeys…”, which again is true of Malmo Quay. b. The illustrations included in the application give the distinct impression of a bland aspect. Local people are already calling it the “Shreddies Building”, comparing it to the breakfast cereal, or the “Cheese Grater”. This design is not in keeping with the buildings, historic, listed or other, in the vicinity. It does look ugly, in my opinion, and detracts from the architecture of the Ouseburn and surrounding area. c. The application suggests that the current state of Malmo Quay is “an eyesore and detracts from the setting of the LOVCA…” but I would suggest the design detracts more. If there was a simple landscaping of the quay into a public, open space that would be a better alternative. Of course, that wouldn’t fit in with the profit to be made via the application as it stands. d. With the application being a hybrid, the Spillers Quay development is linked but not fully, or even partially, defined. This leads to inconsistencies in the application, e.g. is it 150 units or 77 or 62, all numbers referred to in the application. This is also true of the car parking spaces; is that 73, 24 or 18? And what of the “parking barn” that may never be built. With these inconsistencies and an incomplete design, I get very worried as to what may eventually arise. Many construction projects change throughout their implementation via “variations” from the original design. 2. Borderline Viability a. The application refers to the viability of the proposal as “borderline”. For me that throws up alarms. Buildings such as Grenfell Tower had substandard materials used in their construction as a way of keeping costs down and profits high. This is not unusual in all projects whether that be construction or other areas. Having worked extensively with project teams I know that the Project Manager is always under pressure to reach the maximum profit. If the viability is as borderline as is suggested the grave danger, in my mind, is what will they try to do to achieve the greatest profit? b. With regard to my point above (1 d), the use of variations once a project is underway is a means to increasing viability without any oversight or accountability. c. The borderline viability is used to justify no affordable housing within the development. What about the Council’s commitment to providing such accommodation? Does this further the gentrification of the Ouseburn and Riverside schemes which seem to provide a haven for those who can afford such properties and excludes those who can’t? Many of the residents of Newcastle and its environs will not be able to afford to live here. 3. Transport a. I agree that changing our approach to car usage is admirable and I do use walking, cycling and public transport more than I use my car because I live a similar distance from Metro stations and the city centre as this development. However, that does not preclude me from having and using a car. Therefore, to believe that due to the location of Malmo Quay there will be less requirements for parking is foolish. Many of those who live here will also have motor vehicles. If any of the units become homes of multiple occupancy (HMOs), which could easily happen if the units go into the private rented market, there will be even more car parking needed. My point above (1 d) again highlights that there is an inconsistency in the design and a danger of not enough parking. This is compounded by the hybrid nature of the application and the uncertainty about the further developments as yet unplanned. The standards referred to in the application suggests that the design would require 122 parking spaces but the maximum possible stated is 76. b. The parking that is to be provided will be via permits, another indicator of the two-tier society being developed. I live in Heaton where no permits have been granted and we suffer from the “park & ride” syndrome. This won’t affect the residents of Malmo Quay but might increase the disruptive parking in my area. Do I not deserve a similar safeguard? c. There is only one bus service, Q3, that goes near Malmo Quay and this has recently been re-routed away from the area. That now means that public transport is some distance, up a steep bank, including over half a mile to the nearest Metro. That hardly helps with transport links, especially for those with any form of disability. Doesn’t make the development very inclusive, does it? d. The riverside area is a tourist attraction and people do travel there in their cars. Where would they be expected to park? Do we want the area to remain free to all people? Or do the developers and soon to be residents want to keep the area just for themselves. The pedestrian walkways and cycle paths have been re-routed on occasion and there are signs appearing now that claim areas on the riverside are “Private – Keep out”. See section on Culture below. 4. Culture a. Many of these points have been referred to in other sections. b. There seems to be an attempt to create a two-tier society where only those that can afford it can access the Ouseburn and the riverside. Already, signs attempting to exclude the general public have appeared. This is likely to get worse. c. The Ouseburn was once almost derelict and through mostly sympathetic projects has been transformed into a cultural haven for artists and creative businesses. The businesses that operate here now draw in custom from locals and tourists to the North East, e.g. The Tyne Bar, Di Meo’s, Cycle Hub, Free Trade Inn, Northern Rye. d. The view from the Free Trade Inn, whilst not protected, is one that so many students from the two Universities will have as a backdrop to their graduation photos. I have also seen wedding parties there for photographs. Even the low-level housing units, with their “viewing corridor” will affect this. This in turn will affect the trade enjoyed by all the business in the Ouseburn. e. Often, with projects such as this, the incoming residents will be aware of the impacts made by the current businesses, e.g. the music from the Tyne Bar, etc. They tend, once installed, to then begin to agitate against those impacts. We are led to believe that the developers will make it clear to the first owners that there may be noise and other factors that could impact upon them so they are not able to complain once installed. However, this won't apply to any subsequent owners or to those who rent, either long or short-term) rather than buy, so they could well start to complain. This could easily result in the closure of the public houses and other venues. 5. Views a. There have been many suggestions that the main objection to the application is the loss of view from the Free Trade. If, as is correct, that a view is not protected then why is so much emphasis being placed upon views generally, e.g. in the Environmental Study and the Executive summary? b. It isn’t just about views but also the impact on the existing locale as a result of the tower proposed. There seems to be gaps in the studies around daylight, e.g. Mariners Wharf is not mentioned. The impact on the Tyne Bar and Di Meo’s is downplayed as well as other sites, heritage or otherwise. 6. Inconsistency of the application and a lack of trust a. People who have worked with the applicants in the past have stated they do not recognise the tone of the application compared to other sites. They feel this one is driven more by financial gain that any form of community concern or awareness. I couldn’t possibly comment but I do feel a sense of distrust in respect of the “hybrid” nature of the application which leaves the developer free rein with regard to Spillers Quay. b. The lack of consistency about the numbers as I have stated above also makes me uncomfortable. If the application even sounds confusing and not 100% clear this leaves wriggle room for changes later. Changes which might not be challengeable and could be detrimental to the area. c. As I have stated previously, and based on experience of large projects, the stated concern over the lack of viability of the project makes me worried that there will be corners cut and these could result in dangerous conditions. If the project is so borderline viable perhaps it would be better to cut the losses now before incurring more later? | 12/02/2022 | Object |
| Principally, I object to the tower block part of this development, but I believe the whole Malmo development is in conflict with the Council's stated intentions as part of its 'Strategy and Urban Plan', henceforth 'SUP'. The Ouseburn Valley is an extremely special place. As the Council-supported NewcastleGateshead's website puts it, 'Once known as the cradle of the industrial revolution, recent regeneration has transformed Ouseburn to become Newcastle’s cultural quarter and one of the most vibrant creative communities in the North East.' There is a rich cultural life in the Ouseburn, both in terms of its history and its industrial buildings and the social life that its many pubs and venues provide. It would not be excessive to say that the Malmo tower block would ruin the area. At 18 storeys it is *enormous* in comparison to all other buildings in the area. The nature of the design is completely incompatible with the rest of the area. Hence the block would be utterly overbearing, dominating the scenery and devaluing the attractiveness of the listed buildings which define the character of the Ouseburn. The SUP explicitly acknowledges: 'The topography of the Valley is a key characteristic of the area and this will determine the appropriate scale and height of buildings.' If the height of this tower block were deemed appropriate, then it is difficult to imagine what height would be inappropriate. The SUP: 'Development needs to carefully consider and respond to heritage assets, spaces and streets and be of a high standard befitting the regional centre.' No-one except the developer can believe that the building is to a standard befitting the area. It looks cheap and non-descript. It could be a block of flats anywhere in the country, and does not belong in a historic part of Newcastle. It would therefore interfere with the SUP's aspiration: 'Promoting the re-use of vacant historic buildings to maintain the quality of the historic environment and ensure the local distinctiveness of the area is retained.' The block would be visible from everywhere on the Quayside, and have unimaginably negative consequences for the ability of Newcastle to attract people to visit; this will ultimately impact on the trade of the whole city. The SUP: 'The Quayside and Ouseburn Sub-Area contains distinctive vibrant areas defined by their historic legacies, topography and riverside location. The Quayside is one of the most recognisable locations in the UK and is a major attractor for culture, living and as a business location.' The Malmo development would be in clear conflict with the SUP's aim: 'Sustaining and enhancing the character of the area through the reuse of vacant historic buildings and by respecting the scale, plot sizes, topography and historic grain of the area.' All the work that has been done to improve the Quayside, much of which by the NE1 group, would be undermined. It has to be acknowledged that the reason people love the Ouseburn does have a lot to do with how it looks. So if how it looks is dramatically changed for the worse, then it must be understood that people will go there less. Businesses in the Ouseburn which are only now able to start recovering after Covid may be destroyed by the decrease in footfall. The impact on pubs like the Free Trade Inn and Tyne Bar would be deplorable. Hence the proposed development would undermine the SUP's aim to 'promot[e] leisure, culture and tourism that complements the existing diverse mix of uses' It is not just retail businesses which will suffer as a result of the block going ahead. The burgeoning presence in the Ouseburn of the creative media and digital sector in the Ouseburn is to a large degree due to its industrial aesthetic. The tower block would alter this aesthetic and so it will prove less attractive to such businesses. Again it clashes with the SUP: 'Strengthening and clustering economic assets and promoting [the] growth sector: creative media and digital at Ouseburn.' I worry that the infrastructure of the Ouseburn cannot support the increase in residency. Parking is a major issue which has not been considered at all. Rather than reducing street car parking [SUP 16.78], it will need to increase it, since there is not enough parking as part of the development plan. Lastly, there is the opportunity cost. Malmo Quay could be used instead as a wonderful public space. Indeed, the SUP's Policy Q01,8(iii) calls for 'Development providing green infrastructure and/or public spaces at Malmo Quay'. The Malmo development would achieve the exact opposite of this intention and run against the SUP's commitment of the Council to make the best use of its land holdings. [SUP p285] | 12/02/2022 | Object |
| Principally, I object to the tower block part of this development, but I believe the whole Malmo development is in conflict with the Council's stated intentions as part of its 'Strategy and Urban Plan', henceforth 'SUP'. The Ouseburn Valley is an extremely special place. As the Council-supported NewcastleGateshead's website puts it, 'Once known as the cradle of the industrial revolution, recent regeneration has transformed Ouseburn to become Newcastle’s cultural quarter and one of the most vibrant creative communities in the North East.' There is a rich cultural life in the Ouseburn, both in terms of its history and its industrial buildings and the social life that its many pubs and venues provide. It would not be excessive to say that the Malmo tower block would ruin the area. At 18 storeys it is *enormous* in comparison to all other buildings in the area. The nature of the design is completely incompatible with the rest of the area. Hence the block would be utterly overbearing, dominating the scenery and devaluing the attractiveness of the listed buildings which define the character of the Ouseburn. The SUP explicitly acknowledges: 'The topography of the Valley is a key characteristic of the area and this will determine the appropriate scale and height of buildings.' If the height of this tower block were deemed appropriate, then it is difficult to imagine what height would be inappropriate. The SUP: 'Development needs to carefully consider and respond to heritage assets, spaces and streets and be of a high standard befitting the regional centre.' No-one except the developer can believe that the building is to a standard befitting the area. It looks cheap and non-descript. It could be a block of flats anywhere in the country, and does not belong in a historic part of Newcastle. It would therefore interfere with the SUP's aspiration: 'Promoting the re-use of vacant historic buildings to maintain the quality of the historic environment and ensure the local distinctiveness of the area is retained.' The block would be visible from everywhere on the Quayside, and have unimaginably negative consequences for the ability of Newcastle to attract people to visit; this will ultimately impact on the trade of the whole city. The SUP: 'The Quayside and Ouseburn Sub-Area contains distinctive vibrant areas defined by their historic legacies, topography and riverside location. The Quayside is one of the most recognisable locations in the UK and is a major attractor for culture, living and as a business location.' The Malmo development would be in clear conflict with the SUP's aim: 'Sustaining and enhancing the character of the area through the reuse of vacant historic buildings and by respecting the scale, plot sizes, topography and historic grain of the area.' All the work that has been done to improve the Quayside, much of which by the NE1 group, would be undermined. It has to be acknowledged that the reason people love the Ouseburn does have a lot to do with how it looks. So if how it looks is dramatically changed for the worse, then it must be understood that people will go there less. Businesses in the Ouseburn which are only now able to start recovering after Covid may be destroyed by the decrease in footfall. The impact on pubs like the Free Trade Inn and Tyne Bar would be deplorable. Hence the proposed development would undermine the SUP's aim to 'promot[e] leisure, culture and tourism that complements the existing diverse mix of uses' It is not just retail businesses which will suffer as a result of the block going ahead. The burgeoning presence in the Ouseburn of the creative media and digital sector in the Ouseburn is to a large degree due to its industrial aesthetic. The tower block would alter this aesthetic and so it will prove less attractive to such businesses. Again it clashes with the SUP: 'Strengthening and clustering economic assets and promoting [the] growth sector: creative media and digital at Ouseburn.' I worry that the infrastructure of the Ouseburn cannot support the increase in residency. Parking is a major issue which has not been considered at all. Rather than reducing street car parking [SUP 16.78], it will need to increase it, since there is not enough parking as part of the development plan. Lastly, there is the opportunity cost. Malmo Quay could be used instead as a wonderful public space. Indeed, the SUP's Policy Q01,8(iii) calls for 'Development providing green infrastructure and/or public spaces at Malmo Quay'. The Malmo development would achieve the exact opposite of this intention and run against the SUP's commitment of the Council to make the best use of its land holdings. [SUP p285] | 12/02/2022 | Object |
| STRONGLY OBJECT to this submission. The proposal for malamo quay is not in keeping with the local atmosphere and has been included purely to make the project financially viable inspite of the fact it will have an overall negative affect on the area. It will add to traffic congestion, adversely affect tourism and local businesses and increase costs in the area. 1) Traffic and parking - proper transport links parking have not been thought through for cars. Many businesses around this area already struggling for parking areas and adding more housing to the area will only increase the problem. Traffic around the area has also become increasingly worse over the last 5 years and this will only add to the problem. A limited no. Of parking spaces will not deter people from owning cars, simply add to street parking and traffic problems. 2) The tower block, as admitted by the developer, has been included to make the project financially viable dispite it's ridiculous size in comparison with the surrounding area, proving the purpose of the proposal has been about profit and maximising no of sales as opose to what the area actually requires. This space could be transformed into a low level green space or park which would be far more in keeping with the local area and promote tourism for local businesses. The initial costs would be offset by the tax benefit from local businesses recieving increased revenue from increases tourism. 3) Impact on local businesses - I believe the proposal will adversely affect local businesses that rely on tourism to the area. I regularly visit the local pubs / restaurants / climbing wall ) shops in the area but if the ouseburn is continually and heavily developed with stupid proposals such as tower blocks, what makes the area unique will be lost and people like me will be far less inclined to visit and support local business. Currently the area has great access to the river, plenty of light and great views, but why would I visit a local pub or restaurant surrounded by concrete, housing and a large 18 storey cheese grater? 4) increasing costs - Ouseburn area has become increasingly more expensive. Adding mass accomodation to the area will only further increase costs and price small businesses that have made the ouseburn great out of the area and attract larger companies. Once small companies (pubs / breweries / shops / gyms) are priced out of the area and Starbucks ) tower blocks have moved in, tourism will fall, big companies will move out and house prices will drop, followed by the area being left with closed shops and empty accomodation which has happened to so many promising area due to allowing developments like this taking place. In summary I urge the council to say no to this development based on the strong objection of locals. This development and it's ridiculous tower block could be the beginning of the end for the ouseburn and so many great, local businesses which have fuelled the areas growth. | 12/02/2022 | Object |
| STRONGLY OBJECT to this submission. The proposal for malamo quay is not in keeping with the local atmosphere and has been included purely to make the project financially viable inspite of the fact it will have an overall negative affect on the area. It will add to traffic congestion, adversely affect tourism and local businesses and increase costs in the area. 1) Traffic and parking - proper transport links parking have not been thought through for cars. Many businesses around this area already struggling for parking areas and adding more housing to the area will only increase the problem. Traffic around the area has also become increasingly worse over the last 5 years and this will only add to the problem. A limited no. Of parking spaces will not deter people from owning cars, simply add to street parking and traffic problems. 2) The tower block, as admitted by the developer, has been included to make the project financially viable dispite it's ridiculous size in comparison with the surrounding area, proving the purpose of the proposal has been about profit and maximising no of sales as opose to what the area actually requires. This space could be transformed into a low level green space or park which would be far more in keeping with the local area and promote tourism for local businesses. The initial costs would be offset by the tax benefit from local businesses recieving increased revenue from increases tourism. 3) Impact on local businesses - I believe the proposal will adversely affect local businesses that rely on tourism to the area. I regularly visit the local pubs / restaurants / climbing wall ) shops in the area but if the ouseburn is continually and heavily developed with stupid proposals such as tower blocks, what makes the area unique will be lost and people like me will be far less inclined to visit and support local business. Currently the area has great access to the river, plenty of light and great views, but why would I visit a local pub or restaurant surrounded by concrete, housing and a large 18 storey cheese grater? 4) increasing costs - Ouseburn area has become increasingly more expensive. Adding mass accomodation to the area will only further increase costs and price small businesses that have made the ouseburn great out of the area and attract larger companies. Once small companies (pubs / breweries / shops / gyms) are priced out of the area and Starbucks ) tower blocks have moved in, tourism will fall, big companies will move out and house prices will drop, followed by the area being left with closed shops and empty accomodation which has happened to so many promising area due to allowing developments like this taking place. In summary I urge the council to say no to this development based on the strong objection of locals. This development and it's ridiculous tower block could be the beginning of the end for the ouseburn and so many great, local businesses which have fuelled the areas growth. | 12/02/2022 | Object |
| I would like to state my objects to the proposed Malmo Quay developments. This will do substantial damage to the the conservation area of the historic Ouseburn. Not only will this severely limit sunlight and effect the general ecosystem of the area (birds and swans live nearby), the plans are most unfitting with the architecture of the area. They will severely tarnish the historic nature of the area with such historic locations nearby as the Lower Steenberg factory and several pubs which are very much part of the culture and identity that has defined the Ouseburn as one of the most culturally vibrant areas in the North East. The proposed development seeks to damage this reputation and potentially could cause economic harm to the area. | 12/02/2022 | Object |
| I would like to state my objects to the proposed Malmo Quay developments. This will do substantial damage to the the conservation area of the historic Ouseburn. Not only will this severely limit sunlight and effect the general ecosystem of the area (birds and swans live nearby), the plans are most unfitting with the architecture of the area. They will severely tarnish the historic nature of the area with such historic locations nearby as the Lower Steenberg factory and several pubs which are very much part of the culture and identity that has defined the Ouseburn as one of the most culturally vibrant areas in the North East. The proposed development seeks to damage this reputation and potentially could cause economic harm to the area. | 12/02/2022 | Object |
| I would like to state my objects to the proposed Malmo Quay developments. This will do substantial damage to the the conservation area of the historic Ouseburn. Not only will this severely limit sunlight and effect the general ecosystem of the area (birds and swans live nearby), the plans are most unfitting with the architecture of the area. They will severely tarnish the historic nature of the area with such historic locations nearby as the Lower Steenberg factory and several pubs which are very much part of the culture and identity that has defined the Ouseburn as one of the most culturally vibrant areas in the North East. The proposed development seeks to damage this reputation and potentially could cause economic harm to the area. | 12/02/2022 | Object |
| Parking, pedestrians and cycling. Newcastle City Council has abandoned pedestrians and cyclists by allowing drivers to have complete disregard for footpaths and cycle routes. There is not enough parking spaces for the dwellings. Even if we unrealistically said every dwelling would only have one car, there still isn't enough space for anyone visiting or delivering to the premises. I live in a street full of small 2 bedroomed houses, enough parking space for 1 car per house, but most houses have 2 cars, and many have 3. If couples are sharing, or there is shared accommodation, there will be more than 1 car per house. As we see on the quayside, and in all of newcastle, parking has become something like the wild west. The council don't do anything to support with tickets or parking restrictions or permits. The result is people no longer care how or where they park, and the result is dangerous behaviour that forces pedestrians and cyclists in harm's way. The low rise buildings, fine, but the high rise, the quayside just can't support that many cars. Newcastle City Council need to seriously consider creating safe spaces in areas of high volume foot and cycle travel. Building mass housing in the city centre doesn't stop people owning cars. Safe cycling infrastructure will help change habits. That isn't possible with a huge overflow of cars ramped up on pathways and land meant for other things. The report contains a complete smoke screen regarding this by talking about "trip type". People may walk to work but that does not mean they don't have a car or two parked at home for shopping, family visits, trips out of town on a weekend. Car ownership and trip types per day are two different things. I'm basing this on the current car ownership and parking situation in areas of Newcastle already close enough to walk to town. Also, not everybody works "in town". One comment assumes the housing will cater for low income students and prevent them moving south. Are they getting first access at sales? Or will it just be anybody who wants to live on the quayside, so people with jobs and cars already no doubt. Finally, much of Newcastle's architecture (such as Grey Street) was designed to follow the natural curves of the land, winding down to the Tyne. Looking at the curves of gentle hills behind the Tyne, the tower block is working against the land rather than with it. The previous designs in 2015 were much more sympathetic to the location. This design is purely about cramming as many dwellings on a single space so there are more to sell. There’s such a great opportunity for contemporary design here but the use o | 12/02/2022 | Object |
| This building would spoil the riverside scenery. It would be an eyesore. It is far too tall and would spoil not only the skyline along the Tyne here but hinder views of the bridges. | 12/02/2022 | Object |
| 1. The tower is not in keeping with any of the surrounding areas or buildings, or the ethos of the Ouseburn and quayside areas of Newcastle. The materials are not a good match, the height is not appropriate and no part of the surrounding area has that density of population living in a single building or development. 2. Transport issues - it could be 2-3 years (or not at all of planning permission is denied for spillers wharf) before the dwellings have any access to parking spaces. In the meantime there is no regular bus or transport running through the area. As most people own at least one car the risk is that parking becomes a danger to pedestrians and cyclists who regularly use this marked route and adds a significant ugly and piloting element as people scramble to park cars on waste ground or spill over into surrounding streets. Also there is no reasonable way for the residents of the building to travel. No metro, no bus. Nowhere for their cars. 3. Safety - the building will overshadow and make dark the pedestrian and cycling areas between the rear of the bustling and the old tunnels bordering the toffee factory, meaning this becomes a difficult area to navigate and a potential host place for petty crime - which is already a problem in the neighbouring Malings development - see many police call outs for anti social behaviour, thieving and attempted breaking and entering. 4. The tower will have a significant im pact in light and totally change the way sunlight falls across the area around the tofeee factory, the Malings and the Tyne bar, making these darker, and as mentioned previously more prone to crime and more dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists. Likely leading tk a reduction in safety in the highways exacerbated by lack of parking. | 12/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to this proposed building. It is not in keeping with its surrounding and would be a complete eyesore on our beautiful quayside area. It really is ugly and way too tall in comparison to all the other buildings. The traffic in the area is already busy without added construction works or the vehicles a building like this would bring. | 12/02/2022 | Object |
| I am horrified at this proposal. It will essentially RUIN an area of outstanding local beauty - a place which currently straddles the difficult blend of urban and natural extremely well. Any addition of a building of the height proposed is going to tip the balance in entirely the wrong direction: both in that it will be more in favour of the urban/man-made factors and that it will significantly skew the view in both directions. I cannot see a benefit to the building. The Ouseburn is already a prosperous, flourishing enclave and will not gain enough from such an eyesore. | 12/02/2022 | Object |
| While I understand the need to develop these sites and the need to provide housing in the city, I wish to object to the building of the tower block at Malmo Quay. The high rise design is totally out of keeping with the local built environment and landforms. It will do nothing to enhance the area. I have seen, enjoyed and been proud to show off the development of Newcastle Quayside over the past decades and this will negatively impact the iconic views from virtually every angle. I recently walked along from the Swing Bridge to the Cycle Hub and was sad, that were the tower block to be built, it would pierce the world famous views of the Tyne Bridges the whole way along. Surely our city council will not grant permission for a development that would damage its global image? Unless there's a lot of pockets being lined along the way... In addition, the lack of parking with the proposed density of housing is bound to have an impact on local residents and businesses and will do nothing to enhance the experience of visitors to the many attractions of the Quayside and Ouseburn, as well as those completing the Hadrian's Path and cycleway - both high profile, prestigious national routes. Develop these post-industrial sites, by all means, but please, please, please ensure it will enhance the great work done in moving the area forward not detract from our world famous city's reputation. | 12/02/2022 | Object |
| As a Newcastle resident, I am objecting to these proposals on a number of grounds. Whilst I am supportive of the regeneration of ex-industrial areas of the city and appreciate the ongoing requirement to provide housing, I consider these proposals to be highly inappropriate and likely to have a detrimental impact on the quayside and Ouseburn areas. The size and appearance of the 18 storey residential block is in no way in keeping with the surrounding area. Millions of local residents and tourists visit the Newcastle quayside each year, with the spectacular views of the Tyne, its bridges and architecture a central attraction. I am highly concerned about the impact of a residential block of this size will have on this attraction, and subsequently the number of visitors to this area of the city. There are numerous local businesses within the Ouseburn area, the recent regeneration of which has been so successful, that may be negatively affected as a result of declining visitor numbers. Moreover, a building of this height is likely to have a significant impact on sunlight in the surrounding existing buildings, as well as inflicting shadows and overlooking existing residential and commercial buildings, with a serious impact on privacy. The ecological impact of the development is also concerning, with such a building likely to have a negative effect on wildlife in the area, as well as drainage of land into the Tyne, with the potential for issues with flooding to occur. Moreover, the amount of residents which this development intends to house are likely to increase pollution in the area, in terms of air pollution, noise pollution, and increased traffic issues. Traffic in this part of the city is currently relatively limited, meaning that the area is safe for pedestrians and cyclists. The increase in number of vehicles surrounding this area will fundamentally change this, again affecting existing residents and businesses as well as the experience of visitors to the area. This will not be helped by the relatively limited public transport options in this part of the city, with the two closest Metro stations over 1km away. It is therefore likely that the majority of residents will be car owners, which is not something which the Council should be encouraging at this time and goes against all the sustainable plans outlined within its current Transport Plan. The Newcastle quayside is currently a spectacular area of the city with a huge amount of history and wonderful architecture. This includes the Toffee Factory, Glasshouse Bridge and Tyne Bar Public House. This development is in no way in keeping with the existing landscape and I wholly believe that if this was to be approved it would be a travesty for existing residents and businesses in the area, as well as the wider city. I urge you to consider the numerous objections submitted to this proposal seriously. | 13/02/2022 | Object |
| An 18 storey tower is utterly out of keeping with the Quayside and surrounding area. It will stand out like a sore thumb from every angle and ruin the beauty of the quayside for generations to come. One look at the visuals presented in support of this application, and this point cannot be denied. I understand the challenges presented by the site - but this is not a reason to accept a substandard proposal. The sheer massing will not only mean that the development is an eyesore, but it also appears that parking proposed is insufficient and will undoubtedly cause problems on surrounding roads. The negative feeling in the community around this proposal is obvious and I truly hope that the widely held concerns will be given the consideration they deserve. | 13/02/2022 | Object |
| - The Scale and massing of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for it's location. - Quality of design; Quite obvious, but there's very little merit in a beige 18 story tower block in such a prominent position. Does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. - Parking; The submitted plans for Malmo Quay appear to only show 18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block, woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. *It's important to remember that the proposed 73 Parking Spaces on Spillers Wharf are not actually part of this application. Even then, at best they won't be available for at least 3-4 years, will also have to service the 76 apartments potentially being build there and there's a fully functioning carpark being removed to create that site * Accessibility - Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. Environmental - The Local Authority should be ensuring that new developments focus on renovating and adapting old unused buildings not building large new developments which have a larger carbon foot print and use an excess of materials that are not in keeping with the climate crisis. Social Housing - This development does not provide affordable housing for the residents of the local community | 13/02/2022 | Object |
| My main concerns are- this will create traffic congestion, limited parking spaces and noise level will be an issue. The tower block is an eye sore, it does not fit in with the surrounding area. | 13/02/2022 | Object |
| From: Janice Hall 9 Leazes Crescent Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 4LN Re: 2021/2404/01/EIA Objection I would like to register my strong objection to this inappropriate proposal. The proposed 18 storey tower is tall, much taller than any buildings nearby, and would totally dominate the area. The design of the proposed tower is brutal and completely out of keeping and out of all proportion with buildings along the historic Quayside. It would have a devastating impact on an important and historic view. I set out the reasons behind my objection as follows: 1. Tyne Gorge Study The study recommends principles for new development in this area which include: • “maintain the scale, pattern and rhythm of the built quayside, responding to the reduction in building scale and height towards Ouseburn in the east” This building would clearly contradict these principles. 2. Tall Buildings Policy for the area Newcastle City Council’s Tall Buildings Guidance 2017 identifies “The Tyne Gorge and its impressive riverscape” as an area of “distinct and sensitive character”. It also states that there will “be a presumption against tall buildings that; rise from the River Tyne bankside level significantly higher than present landmark structures on the Quayside”. This building would clearly contradict these principles. 3. Parking and transport links There is inadequate provision for parking or consideration of transport infrastructure. Only 24 car parking spaces are proposed for 77 homes; this will force residents to park on surrounding streets, causing congestion. Transport links along the Quayside are already poor and this development would cause additional pressure. The Malmo site is clearly linked to the Spiller’s Quay site and the impact on density, parking and local infrastructure will be even greater when both proposals are considered. 4. Developers Inappropriate justification The Developer uses the justification of the financial challenges of developing on the site to include such a tower but surely this is irrelevant. The tower totally contradicts planning principles and guidelines as mentioned above and the developer’s financial reasons are immaterial. 5. Widespread Community Opposition There is real strength of community feeling against the development in the local area and throughout Newcastle upon Tyne. Residents and local businesses are united in their opposition and I have not encountered a single individual in favour of this proposal. In summary I would welcome a sympathetic development of this site but feel strongly that this proposal is totally inappropriate and would have an adverse impact on the character and heritage of the surrounding area. I trust that all these concerns raised by the community are fully considered and this proposal will be rightly rejected. | 13/02/2022 | Object |
| I strongly object to the proposed 18 story tower block as its scale is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for this location. My concern is that approval will lead to further inappropriate high rise developments along the quayside, which which further impact the views and character of this historic area. Parking; The submitted plans for Malmo Quay appear to only show 18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block. This is woefully inadequate and despite the planners optimism that most residents will travel on foot, the reality is that most will use a car and will need to find on street parking which is guaranteed to put even more pressure on local on-street parking, and will lead to increased road traffic creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. The local public transport will is limited to the Q3 bus, with the nearest metro stations both being situated up a steep hill. The frequency of the bus would need to be increased in order to have any chance of encourageing residents to move away from using their cars. | 13/02/2022 | Object |
| I wish to object to the proposed development by Igloo at Malmo Quay, which occupies approximately 2,400 square metres. I know that this is part of a much larger development, but my concern is with the site towards the west of the junction of the Ouseburn with the River Tyne. Whilst I recognise that this plot of land should be developed, I feel that it is wholly inappropriate to develop a 223 ft. 18-storey building with 62 apartments on this site. The reasons for my objection are as follows: Firstly, the development ignores the impact on the community and businesses who work and live in the local area. In particular, the planned development of just an additional 18 car parking places is wholly insufficient to cope with the parking places that would inevitably be required by the people who move into the housing and apartments that would be developed by Igloo. Assuming that there would be at least one additional car per apartment/new house this would mean that at least 44 car parking places would be required by the people who move in there. Where would these additional car parking places be located? Unless Igloo can come up with a satisfactory explanation for this, this proposal should be rejected. Secondly, it ignores the impact on the landscape and on the ecological habitations. At present, a substantial variety of birdlife and animals including Mute Swans, Redshanks, Kingfishers and Otters, use the Ouseburn valley for feeding and nesting purposes. The development of an 18-storey tower block would have untold developments on the future use of this area by these creatures. Furthermore, it could well harm the Kittiwake site on the Tyne Bridge and the Baltic Flour Mill that has been used by these birds for some time, a site that is the furthest inland in the world. As far as landscape is concerned, the objections are obvious. Firstly, when viewed from the west the development appears in the middle of the marvellous Millennium Footbridge, a view that is extremely well-known throughout the developed world. Viewed from the east, the 18-storey tower block would ‘hide’ the view of the Tyne Bridge and its ‘sister’ bridges, the Baltic, and the Sage from institutions such as the Free Trade Inn and the Tyne Bar, both well-known places of ‘entertainment’ throughout the country. It would not matter if the Igloo proposal led to a development that in some shape or form matches those buildings immediately towards the west of the Malmo Quay – I could accept that – but an 18 storey ‘beige’ tower block - and all of those things that accompany this (e.g., the absence of car parking places, the effect on local wildlife) - is just too hideous to contemplate. With these things in mind, I strongly urge Newcastle City Council to reject this proposal. | 13/02/2022 | Object |
| I strongly object to this planning application in its present form. The images show that it would not be in keeping with the existing area. In particular, the tower block sticks out like a sore thumb and would completely dominate that part of the quayside and surrounding area. | 13/02/2022 | Object |
| Application 2010/2404/01/EIA - The Ouseburn location has gone through a lot of regeneration and what has currently been built is fitting to the area. Malmo is not fitting at all. Apart from being an extremely ugly design it will be the tallest building in that location and will stick out like a sore thumb. It’s a tower block that has no place in the Ouseburn. I hope the council appreciates the location has a rich history and this build would be a blot on the landscape. Kind regards Nicola Rae | 13/02/2022 | Object |
| The development of the site as proposed is not in keeping with the neighbouring area. I'm particular the tower block will dominate the area blocking sightlines and altering the low rise mixed use character of the lower Ouseburn valley. The development as too few parking spaces which will result in increased pressure on on-street parking causing traffic congestion and compromising the safety of pedestrians and cyclists. This is a popular cycle route and the Ouseburn attracts many recreational pedestrians without designated and separate infrastructure for walkers and cyclists there will be increased levels of conflict and accidents. The proposal does not include any social housing. The proposal goes against the City Council's policy objectives. This is an historic and characterful area of the city which has been steadily and relatively redeveloped over the past 30 years retaining a balance between, arts, entertainment, small scale businesses and recreation. As such it is probably unique within the city and should be cherished rather than destroyed. | 13/02/2022 | Object |
| I strongly object to this proposed development. It is completely out of character of the location and will destroy the precious nature of the community. Looking at it from say the Tyne Bridge, the elevation would draw the eye to say nothing of the Tyne views from above the site. Please do not give it approval. | 13/02/2022 | Object |
| I strongly object to this proposed development. It is completely out of character of the location and will destroy the precious nature of the community. Looking at it from say the Tyne Bridge, the elevation would draw the eye to say nothing of the Tyne views from above the site. Please do not give it approval. | 13/02/2022 | Object |
| I strongly object to this proposed development. It is completely out of character of the location and will destroy the precious nature of the community. Looking at it from say the Tyne Bridge, the elevation would draw the eye to say nothing of the Tyne views from above the site. Please do not give it approval. | 13/02/2022 | Object |
| The multistorey building is not in keeping with the surrounding area, and in no way has been designed to fit sympathetically within the other buildings on the quay. Nothing else is that big, modern and generic looking in the surrounding area. The proposal for the building is to increase housing, but the apartments are unlikely to be affordable to many locals, given the area the development is in. It will drown out the historic and iconic buildings and landscape on the quay. The block will cause congestion and parking issues for the residents as well as visitors to the area. It further degrades the greenery and land around the Ouseburn and makes it more built up and crowded. People like the Ouseburn because it's like nowhere else, with its beautiful views, and unique buildings, it's a place to escape the buzz of the city and relax with friends, but these sorts of development ideas will eventually transform all the unique areas of Newcastle so we just become another generic city, with another generic built-up quayside e.g the multi storey blocks along the canals in Leeds, Glasgow quays, etc. We have a hard enough time persuading tourists to come this far North without starting to remove the things that make the city interesting and different. | 14/02/2022 | Object |
| I wish to object to the plans to develop Malmo key and outline plans to develop Spiller's Wharf for the following reasons: - The development on Malmo Quay, and in particular the large tower block is completely at odds with the existing architecture. The low level and traditional style of the existing nearby buildings is part of the reason this area attracts a large number of visitors and makes it a key part of the wider area's draw. This development would completely ruin that. - The financial viability for the developer cannot be allowed to be an excuse for unsympathetic development. - Access, parking, and public transport all need to be improved in this area before new accommodation is built. The lessons of Liverpool's loss of UNESCO world heritage site status for its waterfront need to be learned in considering the affect of this development on the local area. | 14/02/2022 | Object |
| The plans to completely destroy the character and environment of the Ouseburn must be stopped. The monstrous 223ft apartment complex, plus the surrounding eight story blocks that the developers want to build on Malmo Quay, will fundamentally and permanently change the character, views and environment of Newcastle's historic quayside in the most damaging way possible. No plans, either current or future should be so out of line with the character, environment and history of the Ouseburn. | 14/02/2022 | Object |
| I believe this building will negatively impact out beloved Quayside. It's simply to big and not in keeping with any of the other buildings. The area does need development but surely a building half the height would be just as viable. The quayside and Ouseburn has received global attention recently and is regarded one of the trendiest places to live in the world, we must build and maintain this not cash out on what is essentially a high-rise flatblock. There's several viewpoints which will be forever impacted by this building, we must do better! | 14/02/2022 | Object |
| As local residents of 7 years, we are writing to object to the proposed Malmo Quay development, particularly to the proposed tower block. The sheer size and stature of the tower block would overwhelm the area, both aesthetically and practically. It will overshadow the current residential flats along the quayside and the developing residential area along the Ouseburn river (Steenbergs Yard and The Malings). It will tower over office buildings like the Toffee Factory and Newcastle Enterprise Centre. It will have a negative impact on other businesses such as The Tyne Bar, Free Trade Inn, Di Meo’s and Northern Rye. It will also impact on local listed buildings such as Sailor’s Bethel on Horatio Street. All of these (and many more) buildings will suffer from loss of natural light and decrease in privacy due to the size of the tower block. The look of the tower is completely out of place compared to the other buildings in the area. All new developments have been designed to fit in with the landscape of the area, and this design and plan goes blatantly away from this. Why anyone would think a huge, beige, cheap looking building could be in keeping with what is currently along the quayside and in the Ouseburn is baffling. The area already struggles from a lack of parking for the current residents of the flats on the quayside. Many people have to park their cars on both sides of the road due to the lack of spaces. This development will only increase the strain on the area causing an increase in traffic rendering a much less safe area for walking, runners and cyclists. Not to mention the environmental impact on the area (noise and air pollution). The Q3 bus no longer directly services the quayside and this site is not close enough to a Metro to encourage the use of public transport. The site will also have a negative impact on National Cycle Route 72 (Hadrian’s Cycle Way), which is part of the coast to coast route used by thousands of cyclists and walkers every year. The developers have stated that they need the tower to make their project financially viable. We don’t believe this to be an adequate reason for the area to be burdened with a monstrous tower block, that has clearly been an after-thought and been given minimal thought and consideration to local residents, workers and regular visitors to the area. The Ouseburn is a cultural hub and a thriving close-knit community and has built a reputation internationally as a place to visit. This development will do nothing to enhance that reputation and puts the area’s integrity at risk. Emily Keeling and James Keeling 159 Walker Road, NE6 1RN | 14/02/2022 | Object |
| I think this is the opposite of what Ouseburn needs. It is ugly and should instead be used as a green space for people. | 14/02/2022 | Object |
| i object to the malmo quay proposal 2021/2404/01/EIA joseph donald, 10 saxilby drive, gosforth NE35LS | 14/02/2022 | Object |
| The proposal for the high rise block is completely out of character with the area, and is not of a standard that this part of the quayside deserves. If the proposal is for a prominent building it should at least be a building which will be fit for future generations....the proposal appears out dated even before it is built. The quayside deserves better. The Council should be preserving and improving this area. This proposal is a disgrace and smacks of cash being prioritised over preserving the history and importance of this sight. No doubt the building will cast shadows over some of the most scenic views of the river and quayside. Newcastle deserves better. | 14/02/2022 | Object |
| The sense of scale doesn't fit with the local.area or enhance the historical character of the Ouseburn at all. A un-thoughtful design which will overshadow local businesses such as Tyne bar and free trade. Majorly inadequate parking which is already an issue impacting The Malings development, soon to be added to by neighbouring developments and car parking charges at the hub. | 14/02/2022 | Object |
| Please bear in mind what has become of Liverpools iconic waterfront. Heritage destroyed by buildings of no value . This development is unnecessary and completely out of keeping with our quayside ,which has taken 40 or so years to restore,As a resident of newcastle for 67 years the view coming from the east end along City road still makes me proud of our region. The council will be despised for years to come if this goes ahead,and as in the past,motives will be questioned. | 14/02/2022 | Object |
| I would like to object to the building of the high-rise block. It would dominate and ruin the skyline over the river which is currently very pleasant. I don't believe the proposed design is at all in keeping with the architecture of the quayside, and I would personally describe the proposed design as hideous. I'm a resident of Newcastle and spend many weekends around Ouseburn and the quayside. I also don't feel there is enough parking available for a residential block of this size. | 14/02/2022 | Object |
| 2021/2404/01/EIA - Malmo quay development I object to the following proposal for various reasons. The first is the design of this building is inappropriate for the area - given buildings around this are much smaller in height and fit to an aethstetic of the general area, buildings around. This new building would look out of place in stature and design and be inappropriate regarding the current buildings around the area. Regarding its height this will also reduce sun and cast shadow over already existing accommodation for developments and businesses in the area. In addition, it will overlook several properties in the area causing potential for loss of privacy for those already living there. In addition I have significant concerns around the building adding to local traffic which is already problematic in the area, for my work i often have to drive through the quayside area and this is already a challenging and area that has significant problems with trafic. Adding additional housing to this area will further exacerbate these problems and cause increasing damage to the local environment and challenges for those living and working there. Public transport options in the area are limited and there is a lack of current alternatives to driving to the area. | 14/02/2022 | Object |
| The development is much bigger than the surrounding area and out of character. It will have a significant and negative impact as it is out of scale with the surroundings, it doesn't 'fit in', and is oversized. It doesn't match the area in terms of the Riverside location, nor the unique historic yet natural environment of the ouseburn. It is completely unsympathetic to the area. | 14/02/2022 | Object |
| I strongly object to this application on multiple grounds. These plans fail from a cultural, infrastructure, environment, and aesthetic standpoint. It is, as others have said, an eyesore. It is monstrous in size, completely out of place, laughably ugly and inappropriate by almost any measure you could think of. The plans show a complete misunderstanding and a disregard of everything that has made the Ouseburn a jewel of Newcastle. Other towns and cities around the country would give anything to have an area so rich in culture and renowned throughout the region. Newcastle itself has had developers in the west of the city, describes their desire to create an Ouseburn of West Newcastle. It is strange, then, while working with developers to try and recreate a new Ouseburn elsewhere, they would have a hand in actively sabotaging the original. The only redeeming qualities of this development that anyone seems able to bring up are an increase in homes and profit from land use. If the concern is homes in the area, the sites down river make substantially more sense, the homes should be of the affordable kind, and the travel infrastructure would need significant overhaul. --- More specifically, a great many of the statements within the Environmental Statement produced by Cundall are littered with claims that are transparently false. There are almost too many to call out so below I have just picked some of the silliest: “The MOO albeit a very important part of Newcastle’s structure, does not strongly engage with the public at present, even visually.” This is simply false. There is no other way to put it. The Sailors Bethel, the stack of the Toffee Factory, the barrage, the old school, the boats docked in the mouth, the Tyne Bar, the red brick arches of Walker Road, the various walls filled with public art, the Free Trade Inn, the Cycle Hub. All of these things, not individually but collectively, engage with the public to an extremely high degree. It is exactly these kinds of things that have made the Ouseburn the success that it is, the fact they are discounted so readily speaks volumes. To make a claim that the area does not engage with the public is simply and obviously wrong and calls into question the integrity of any other appraisals made about the local area. Throughout it is claimed that the new buildings would be a more appealing setting for walkers along the river and that the demolition of the Cycle Hub and its relocation to a smaller site on Malmo would be of a benefit to the area’s appeal and to the Hub itself. The assertion that the development of a high-rise residential block and townhouses make the area more appealing to people walking along the river than an open space is rather silly. Moreover, the Cycle Hub currently enjoys a spot with excellent visibility and prominence from both directions on the quayside both from the road (the cycle route) and from the path, and also from the Walker Road Bridge above. The Hub is a key community asset and has the space and setting to perform multiple much needed functions. Moving them into a dense residential area, away from the cycle route and into a smaller building would seriously hinder the organisations operations and be a massive detriment to the area. It’s shocking that this would be dressed up as a benefit. Just another bare faced lie. “…it should be noted that construction of the approved ‘Eye on the Tyne’ observation wheel would be nearly twice the height of MT and has set a precedent for the acceptable introduction of such height.” Using the (controversial) big wheel attraction as a precedent for an out of place high-rise building which would, in turn, be used as a precedent for other high-rise buildings along the quayside is, quite frankly, underhand. “In addition, the tall building can be seen as a marker for the Ouseburn Valley from further afield” It would certainly stick out from it’s surroundings, that much can’t be denied. The Ouseburn does not need a marker, especially one of this nature. It will give a completely false impression of what the area is. Nobody would see this development from down river and assume that, just behind it, is the location of one of the countries hotbeds of art, industry and culture. It will achieve the exact opposite of what is proposed throughout this document. It will actively repel the people the Ouseburn has traditionally attracted. “The low speed environment around the site provides an excellent environment for both pedestrians and cyclists, providing opportunity for residents and visitors to access the development on foot or by bicycle.” This is not an unreasonable assessment of the current environment. Cycle Route 72 of the National Cycling Network runs along the road adjacent to this site, the river promenade attracts a lot of foot traffic, and the existing homes near the site account for a not inconsiderable amount of parking. These elements do come into conflict to some extent but it is mitigated by the low speeds involved. However, the cumulative effect of this new development would bring significant increases to traffic flow and roadside parking, causing many more conflicts on a vital and heavily used active travel corridor, and one of the few low traffic east-west routes in the city. “The site’s location will also facilitate convenient access on foot to the nearest bus stops which are located adjacent to the site” The nearby bus services are not sufficient for the existing environment, this will only exacerbate the issue. “Metro / Rail stations located within a convenient walk of the site within Newcastle city centre.” This is not true. To be overly polite it is wishful thinking, otherwise it is simply dishonest. The gradient of the walk to any rail service is significant. To describe this as convenient is laughable. For the young and able it is inconvenient, for the rest it is borderline infeasible. “The site is also located adjacent to a well-connected local highway network which offers convenient access to the wider Newcastle area in addition to the strategic highway network.” City Road/Walker Road by Car will quite clearly be the primary means of travel for the vast majority of residents. The demographics prospective residents would also likely have a high proportion of multiple car households. “The location of the site will therefore provide excellent opportunity for future residents and visitors to travel to and from the development using sustainable modes of travel in accordance with local and national planning policy,” This statement is simply false and as such contradicts local and national planning policy. Given the climate emergency declared in the North of Tyne, this is all rather damning. The public transport and active travel infrastructure in this area is not sufficient to discourage car use to any meaningful degree, and so you get the worst of both worlds. Plans made on the assumption of high active and public travel in an environment that doesn’t facilitate it, putting added strain on a road network already struggling. “The development is forecast to have a negligible impact on the operation of the adjacent highway network” The spurious claims made throughout about the ease of access to public transport and active travel in the area call into question the validity of any models used to asses the sustainability of the development from a capacity, safety, public health, air quality, and climate perspective. --- I could go on, but if you read these documents with any understanding of the area and even a shred of integrity, they are self-evidently stupid and inappropriate and should be rejected out of hand. | 14/02/2022 | Object |
| The development is clearly unsuitable for the local level and scale. The vernacular is insensitive and it is obvious to see that its primary goal is to sell overpriced flats and apartments and at the same time set a precedent for future developments of this scale and nature, which again are totally ( the block of flats) insensitive to the existing nature of the quayside and the amenity value currently enjoyed. | 14/02/2022 | Object |
| As a resident and council tax payer, I object to the Malmo Quay Development 2021/2404/01/EIA in its current form. The development is of a size (18 storeys) completely disproptionate to the surrounding areas. It overshadows and dwarfs the relatively low level buildings surrounding it and is jarring and out of character with the surrounding area. the proposed building is also of a design (popularly referenced as the cheese grater in the evening chronicle) that is inconsistent and out of character with its surroundings. Newcastle is a wonderful historic site with a world class riverscape as described in tourist guides such as Lonely Planet and Rough Guide. The City Council and British Government have listed many of the buildings and/or made conservation and heritage areas along the Quayside. In addition the Ouseburn area is now emerging as a new heritage area and classified as one of the world's coolest areas in Time Out. The proposed Malmo Quay development is not just unsympathetic to these historic and classic architectural areas but damades them and sadly diminishes the Newcastle city scape in a similar way to many of the failed 1970's high rise development like the demolished Westgate Tower or failed Cale Cross Tower (now being re-purposed). This objection is not oppossed to development, up until now the Newcastle Quayside re-development has been excellent because it is proportionate and sympathetic to the historic nature of the Quayside, so I suggest this development be restricted to 6-8 storeys with a new design. | 14/02/2022 | Object |
| Inappropriate tower block and unnecessary buildings spoiling vista. Awful design | 14/02/2022 | Object |
| Inappropriate tower block and unnecessary buildings spoiling vista. Awful design | 14/02/2022 | Object |
| Inappropriate tower block and unnecessary buildings spoiling vista. Awful design | 14/02/2022 | Object |
| We would like to submit our objections to the planning application for the following reasons. Environmental, traffic and noise pollution: We are very concerned that the proposed development does not adequately take into consideration the amenity value of the Ouseburn area, which we are all very proud of. As you walk down through the Ouseburn river area, passing by the industrial highlights of 36 Lime Street and how this has been fantastically repurposed into artists studios, bringing life and vitality back to the area, with the amazing resource of 7Stories and the community hubs from the Byker Farm, Northern Print, Stepney Banks Stables, and many other independent businesses, it is a very pleasant area to live close by. The aesthetic, cultural, environmental and recreational possibilites abound. All of these show how development can enhance the area and help the community to pull together and live in harmony with their surroundings. The proposed development tall tower and additional housing does nothing to elevate the area or make it a more wonderful place to be, live, love, work, eat and play in. We are worried that the housing density proposed will cause untold damage to the environment, bring about an increase in levels of traffic as well as noise pollution from the building work itself through to the project completion and when the residents move in. We worry about the contaminated land aspects of this development proposal. What safeguards are in place, to make sure that any contamination discovered in the land, sediment, river base are not going to cause damage to the environment, the river, wildlife, both flora and fauna and for safety of construction workers or residents nearby? Will there be adequate on-site monitoring during construction and once the project has completed to ensure there is no continuing environmental damage in the area? With an increase in residential inhabitants, what extra provision has been made for the increase in demand for waste, health and other services? Is there any provision for social and affordable housing in this development? Access We regularly travel this route through to work or when going into the city centre. This enables us to enjoy the wonderful nature afforded by the Ouseburn Valley, and along the River Tyne before navigating our up the many routes to work, town or the transport hubs. However, we feel the new development will hinder this for quite a long time once the construction work begins. We also have huge concerns regarding pedestrian access along the quayside. Current parking conditions not great along this stretch, causing limited access to pavements for walkers and it's almost impossible for those with prams or wheelchairs to navigate without having to use the road instead. The proposed developments plan for minimal parking will not help, with such limited number of spaces leading to inevitable on street parking. The developers hope that residents will walk and use public transport is admirable but there is limited infrastructure in this area regarding bus and metro services, and the majority of these are up steep hills. An increase in service will again have a knock on effect for the safety of pedestrians and cyclists. The development resides on part of the wonderful Hadrians Way Quayside Walk and should be accessible for locals and visitors. Whilst there has been a number of private land signs placed recently in the vicinity deterring walking - we wonder how accessible the riverside walk will be at Malmo Quay due to noise and space issues for local residents. Will walkers have to find alternative, more dangerous routes around the back of the residential blocks? The Malmo development should be a welcoming gateway to the Ouseburn and the Quayside and shine a light on our fabulous city, but we fear the presented plans are more of a barricade, blocking access to the many historical buildings of both the Ouseburn and the city centre. Proportion The development is too large in our opinion for this site, out of scale and out of proportion with all other buildings on the quayside and within the valley. It juts out on the skyline and doesn't even seem to try to blend or fit in. It doesn’t seem to fit into the long held Tyne valley development strategy which makes Newcastle such a wonderful place. Instead of fitting into the existing landscape and being part of the community and city, it feels like a barrier, blocking and dividing. We also worry about the light, and how that will effect local properties and businesses. Also the light into the Ouseburn valley walk itself, a darker route may lead to a perception regarding safety and security, affecting peoples ability/willingness to access this area. How it looks. The developers have claimed this will act as a landmark for the Ouseburn area. It probably will, but in the wrong way. The Ouseburn area is famed for embracing its environment, its industry and its creativity and yet this is not evident in the design for this development. It doesn’t seem to fit with either the style of the Ouseburn or other quayside buildings. It feels like a fairly standard housing estate for a select number of priviliged residents / renters. We have concerns that, as the developer has already made clear, there is a financial impact regarding the number of properties required for project viability, that style has been lost over substance. Malmo quay deserves something which celebrates the working class traditions of the area, reflecting the industrial and creative heritage, whilst providing a gateway to the point the burn meets the river. What seems to be proposed is an out of proportion standard housing development which will overshadow the area, be a barrier and potentially stop access for local residents to the quayside for the sake of a few who can afford to live here. | 14/02/2022 | Object |
| 2021/2404/01/EIA Malmo Quay Development I want to object to this planning proposal. I am not against the development of Malmo; however, I was expecting a world-class scheme from Igloo, which takes note of its surroundings. Unfortunately, this scheme is neither world-class nor complements its surroundings. As a resident of the Malings developed by Igloo and having seen Igloos approach to LSY, the Malmo scheme has veered away from their usual practice. As a result, interaction on this project has been disappointing and not what I would expect from this developer. My reasons to object are as follows : 1. Scale and massing and local amenity. It does not appear appropriate to the local environment. It changes the current built development and topography of the site. Less of an issue if the building was of world-class design (as described by the developer) and fitted in with adjacent historical and heritage sites). The development does not respect or enhance the local area. It does not mean that the building could not be modern, but the design and scale appear totally out of context with the environment. 2 Conflict with local regulations & planning policies. I fail to see how this site takes any account of the Tyne Gorge Study, Ouseburn Planning policy, heritage and conservation guidelines, and several other council policies. 3 Daylight, Sunshine and Overshadowing - I can not see in any of Igloos documentation reference to the impact on the Mailing Development, which is close by and will be affected. Why was this not carried out? 4 Hybrid Application - Is this type of application legitimate. I understand that if Malmo is approved, then so is Spillers Quay; very little information is available on Spillers Quay. It appears approval by stealth. 5 The Cycle Hub is an essential aspect of the local community. Its demolition is very detrimental to local amenities. The proposed replacement does not offer a like for like replacement, which may make this business and the associated business' unviable. A loss not only to Ouseburn but wider Newcastle. Equally important is the building itself, an essential existing feature of the area. 6Traffic - I fail to see how the local area can support the additional infrastructure, the loss of existing parking, the poor public transport links to this location. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| I am writing to object to the proposed development of Malmo Quay (2021/2404/01/EIA) as I whole heartedly believe the proposed scheme not only falls short of the standards required under the applicable planning policies and guidance, but risks permanently damaging an area of great significance to the City of Newcastle. As a recent former resident of Citipeak Apartments I thoroughly understand the velocity of the detrimental effect the scheme will have on our beloved local culture hub. The effect upon listed buildings and landscapes would be catastrophic, including (but not limited to) the increased noise and disturbance, reduced air quality from an increase in traffic resulting in lack of highway safety due to lack of means of access. The public transport links to this area are not strong. There has been unplanned works upon the bridge in Ouseburn this past week which has caused a massive build up of congestion in the area, which I can only imagine to be a snapshot if the scheme was to be given the go ahead. It goes without saying that the overall appearance and density of the proposed development is nothing short of an eyesore and blight upon the Newcastle skyline. The sheer size would cause overshadowing and lack of sunlight to what would have been my old flat and now the current residents. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for its location. Therefore I strongly object to the proposal due to the irreversible harm it will cause to the character and identity one of Newcastle’s most unique and valuable neighbourhoods, and the failure of the scheme to comply with the applicable planning policies and planning guidance. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| As a local business with headquarters located in St. Peters Basin and staff who commute to this office, we wish to object the proposed planning application (2021/2404/01/EIA) of the Malmo Quay development. The plans not only fall short of the standards required under the applicable planning policies and guidance, but risks permanently damaging an area of great significance to the City of Newcastle. The historic Quayside and cultural hub of Ouseburn are already populated areas with established residential properties, well-known amenities, such as restaurants, bars, and cafes, as well as features like the iconic bridges, art and culture venues and scenic walking and cycling routes, attracting local visitors and tourists alike. Adding the proposed development will increase the footfall in and around an area that is already incredibly busy and will result in excess congestion, as well as causing adverse noise and disturbance. Consequently, this will have a dangerous effect on the popular national cycle route alongside the river. The public transport provision will not be able to support the development proposed. There is already limited access in the area with the existing infrastructure of restricted bus routes and no metro stations in a close vicinity of 1km. This will result in overcrowding on the limited public transport that is available, having an impact on the local neighbourhood and those who already struggle to commute in for work, especially as the traffic, particularly in rush hour and peak times, is already exceptionally heavy. The proposed development, notably with the limited public transport discussed, is going to seriously increase this traffic congestion and air pollution, which is inconceivable given the current situation of how busy the roads are. This is even more absurd with the negligible number of parking spaces included in this proposed development, meaning that the parked cars will overcrowd the surrounding roads too. The design, even down to the colour scheme and materials, of the proposed 18-story building is inappropriate and does not keep within the rest of the historic character of Quayside and Ouseburn. The size, scale and appearance of the proposed development is excessively large and obtrusive, blocking sunlight and casting shadows on nearby existing businesses and local residential properties. Furthermore, the height and style of the proposed construction takes away from the community feel of the area with its listed buildings and local heritage sites. Therefore we strongly object to the proposal due to the irreversible harm it will cause to existing residents, visitors, businesses and identity of one Newcastle’s most unique and valuable neighbourhoods, alongside the failure of the scheme to comply with the applicable planning policies and planning guidance. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| The development is inappropriate for the area and out of keeping with the surrounding buildings. It would have an appalling impact on this part of the Ouseburn, with the proposed tower literally overshadowing buildings in the surrounding area. The development has no public transport links and there is nowhere near enough space available locally for parking for the number of private cars that would be associated with a development of this size. The additional road traffic would make the area unsafe for the walkers, runners and cyclists who use the surrounding area extensively. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| Objection to planning application 2021/2404/01/EIA: The proposed development is out of keeping with the surrounding area in terms of design and scale, which will vastly and detrimentally alter the local topography. Ouseburn and the Quayside are characterised by repurposed industrial buildings and historic characteristics. Even if the proposed development was in keeping with the style of existing buildings, the 18 storey tower block would be totally inappropriate within this setting, and stick out on the skyline in terms of it's scale with the surrounding buildings. Additionally, it would have a negative impact on the surrounding properties both residential and commercial in terms of blocking sunlight and overshadowing. Existing buildings in this area acheive 4 or 5 storeys, so anything matching what currently exists may be acceptable, but the proposed 18 storey tower block would be entirely incongruous with the surrounding area. Furthermore, there are issues with access and parking. The current application plans for only 18 parking spaces, which is woefully inadequate for 62 apartments. There would therefore be a vastly increased demand on the surrounding infrastructure for on-street parking, and could cause dangerous conditions. Residents of the new development couldn't realistically be expected to rely on public transport, as no bus routes pass the site currently, and the nearest metro stations are all at least 1km away and difficult to access on foot, especially for those with mobility issues. Therefore there would presumably need to be an additional bus service routed to the area, which would increase traffic and air pollution, or residents would rely on use of personal vehicles, for which the current proposal has planned inadequate parking. In all, this development would have a negative impact on the Ouseburn and Quayside, two of the most historical and charming areas of the city. The design of the planned 18 storey tower block is unsympathetic to the existing built environment, and practical elements of the plan are woefully inadequate as there is currently no scope to provide sufficient parking for the new residences. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| I strongly object to the proposals outlined in this application. My objection is particularly concerned with the 18 storey residential block which makes up a key section of the application. The proposed scheme has many issues including the size, scale, lack of design quality and a lack of context based design. A few key points of concern are outlined below: • Financial viability – The developers have noted that the proposed tower block will be necessary to allow for the scheme to be financially viable. This is at complete odds to the multiple successful schemes completed in recent years in the Ouseburn area which have allowed for high quality residential units to be constructed at a scale and style far more in keeping with the area. • Prominence – The Prominent and dominant position that the scheme will take up in the Ouseburn area will be completely detrimental to the adjacent Ouseburn conservation area. Whilst the proposed scheme sits outside the conservation area the impact of the proposals will be as detrimental to the area as it would be if it were to be within the boundary. Furthermore if the scheme is to utilise such a prominent site then the proposed design should be of such a high quality which this application fails to do. • Lack of quality design – Whilst there has been some effort in the included design and access statement to outline the architectural detailing of the facades. The quality of the design around the tower is particularly poor. The resulting design is flat, cheap and dull with an attempt to compensate this lack of design and detail by referencing high quality precedents and the use of a slight chamfer to the south elevation. • Scale – The proposed tower will be the tallest building on Newcastle’s Quayside and will be completely inappropriate and not in keeping with the area which is largely made up of 3-4 storey buildings. The proposal is even taller than the West One, Forth Banks building on the other side of the city which also a significantly steeper backdrop compared to the low backdrop of Ouseburn valley. The resulting scheme has seemingly been designed in completely separate sections by entirely different people. The townhouses are seemingly appropriate and have considerate scale and massing. They have pleasant and subtle brick detailing and include community integration built into their design. The tower feels at complete odds with the rest of the proposal and lacks any of the design considerations that are apparent in the rest of the scheme. The proposals are beneath the level of quality expected by an internationally renowned architecture practice. The inclusion of the tower seems to be a cheap grab at maximising profits for the developer at the expense of the area’s character, residents and visitors. Kind Regards, Alasdair Graham 88 Ouseburn Wharf, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE6 1BZ | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| Building a towerblock on the Malmo site will have irriversable cultural effects on the area. The ouseburn is a hub for many artists, and creatives all in need of space and custom for their buisnesses. I believe that a towerblock at the opening of the ouseburn will cut off the area from Newcastle's quayside. Making it harder for local buisnesses to attract new custom. The Malings houses have already proven that noise is an issue with residents. Something which the Tyne Bar for example has already had to adjust to. I feel adding another nearby dwelling will put strain on local buisnesses such as pubs and bars which need to be busy to make a living generating their income from live music. With further noise complaints in the area the atmosphere at venues such as The Tyne Bar & Free Trade Inn which rely on their location for their unmatchable views of the river. The ouseburn was once terribly polluted and nature has returned to the valley. Many birds, such as swans and other wildlife live on the river. I believe construction of the towerblock will effect the delicate ecosystem. The land being developed on is known to be reclaimed from the tyne and is built of ballast. This will make the project extremely complicated to pull off and I believe will make the prices of the properties extremely expensive. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| no igloo, never ever. get lost scum | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| not in my city, get lost, and i don't give a crap asbout anympa\rish... screw religeon that can get lost as well | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| As a local resident and regular to ouseburn and quayside I object to application 2021/2404/01/EIA Malmö Quay on the following grounds. The building does not fit in to the current style or topography of the area. The building will encroach on the local area in a number of way including but not limited to local heritage and listed buildings like the sailors bethel. It would increase traffic to an area already struggling to cope with local traffic demand which could result in traffic accidents. An increase of road traffic caused by residents of the building will pose a threat to near by cyclists and the national cycle network that runs near by. The area surrounding the proposed Malmö development is already scarce on parking and residents and visitors will only add to this which is dangerous, will increase air and noise pollution as well as causing the tourist area of quayside to lose visitors. The sheer scale and size of the building will inevitably cause privacy issues for the residents it overlooks as well as blocking sunlight and daylight to surrounding buildings. I am concerned about the potential impact a building of this size could have local protected wildlife such as the kittiwake colony that nest on quayside. My final concern about the Malmö development is the placement of so many new residents in an area already short if public transport, this areas lacks a metro connection and is currently only serviced by busy single decker buses which will force residents to rely on cars in an area already stretched for parking (see above). | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| As a local resident and regular to ouseburn and quayside I object to application 2021/2404/01/EIA Malmö Quay on the following grounds. The building does not fit in to the current style or topography of the area. The building will encroach on the local area in a number of way including but not limited to local heritage and listed buildings like the sailors bethel. It would increase traffic to an area already struggling to cope with local traffic demand which could result in traffic accidents. An increase of road traffic caused by residents of the building will pose a threat to near by cyclists and the national cycle network that runs near by. The area surrounding the proposed Malmö development is already scarce on parking and residents and visitors will only add to this which is dangerous, will increase air and noise pollution as well as causing the tourist area of quayside to lose visitors. The sheer scale and size of the building will inevitably cause privacy issues for the residents it overlooks as well as blocking sunlight and daylight to surrounding buildings. I am concerned about the potential impact a building of this size could have local protected wildlife such as the kittiwake colony that nest on quayside. My final concern about the Malmö development is the placement of so many new residents in an area already short if public transport, this areas lacks a metro connection and is currently only serviced by busy single decker buses which will force residents to rely on cars in an area already stretched for parking (see above). | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| As a local resident and regular to ouseburn and quayside I object to application 2021/2404/01/EIA Malmö Quay on the following grounds. The building does not fit in to the current style or topography of the area. The building will encroach on the local area in a number of way including but not limited to local heritage and listed buildings like the sailors bethel. It would increase traffic to an area already struggling to cope with local traffic demand which could result in traffic accidents. An increase of road traffic caused by residents of the building will pose a threat to near by cyclists and the national cycle network that runs near by. The area surrounding the proposed Malmö development is already scarce on parking and residents and visitors will only add to this which is dangerous, will increase air and noise pollution as well as causing the tourist area of quayside to lose visitors. The sheer scale and size of the building will inevitably cause privacy issues for the residents it overlooks as well as blocking sunlight and daylight to surrounding buildings. I am concerned about the potential impact a building of this size could have local protected wildlife such as the kittiwake colony that nest on quayside. My final concern about the Malmö development is the placement of so many new residents in an area already short if public transport, this areas lacks a metro connection and is currently only serviced by busy single decker buses which will force residents to rely on cars in an area already stretched for parking (see above). | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| As a local resident and regular to ouseburn and quayside I object to application 2021/2404/01/EIA Malmö Quay on the following grounds. The building does not fit in to the current style or topography of the area. The building will encroach on the local area in a number of way including but not limited to local heritage and listed buildings like the sailors bethel. It would increase traffic to an area already struggling to cope with local traffic demand which could result in traffic accidents. An increase of road traffic caused by residents of the building will pose a threat to near by cyclists and the national cycle network that runs near by. The area surrounding the proposed Malmö development is already scarce on parking and residents and visitors will only add to this which is dangerous, will increase air and noise pollution as well as causing the tourist area of quayside to lose visitors. The sheer scale and size of the building will inevitably cause privacy issues for the residents it overlooks as well as blocking sunlight and daylight to surrounding buildings. I am concerned about the potential impact a building of this size could have local protected wildlife such as the kittiwake colony that nest on quayside. My final concern about the Malmö development is the placement of so many new residents in an area already short if public transport, this areas lacks a metro connection and is currently only serviced by busy single decker buses which will force residents to rely on cars in an area already stretched for parking (see above). | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| As a local resident and regular to ouseburn and quayside I object to application 2021/2404/01/EIA Malmö Quay on the following grounds. The building does not fit in to the current style or topography of the area. The building will encroach on the local area in a number of way including but not limited to local heritage and listed buildings like the sailors bethel. It would increase traffic to an area already struggling to cope with local traffic demand which could result in traffic accidents. An increase of road traffic caused by residents of the building will pose a threat to near by cyclists and the national cycle network that runs near by. The area surrounding the proposed Malmö development is already scarce on parking and residents and visitors will only add to this which is dangerous, will increase air and noise pollution as well as causing the tourist area of quayside to lose visitors. The sheer scale and size of the building will inevitably cause privacy issues for the residents it overlooks as well as blocking sunlight and daylight to surrounding buildings. I am concerned about the potential impact a building of this size could have local protected wildlife such as the kittiwake colony that nest on quayside. My final concern about the Malmö development is the placement of so many new residents in an area already short if public transport, this areas lacks a metro connection and is currently only serviced by busy single decker buses which will force residents to rely on cars in an area already stretched for parking (see above). | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| I would like to object to Application 2021/2404/01/EIA (the 'Malmo Quay' development). As a Newcastle resident who frequently spends time in Ouseburn and along the quayside, I have the following concerns: 1. The plans submitted do not account for adquate parking in an area that already has limited public transportation links and parking access, which will affect the residences and businesses in the area. 2. The design and appearance of the building are wildly out of place along the Quayside and the structure itself will impede a view that has become a staple of Newcastle. The scale of the buliding means it will cast shadow on significant areas along the quayside, affecting businesses and other residence. 3. The scale and design of the building is out of keeping with the current local environment, let alone the overshadowing mentioned previously. Ouseburn and the Quayside's aesthetic includes a range of buildings, including historic buildings and heritage properties and this proposed development would alter the local environment, in some kcases blocking the sightline of key fixtures of Newcastle (e.g. Ouseburn School, Tyne Bar Public House, Toffee Factory). Overall, this proposal as described and modelled is an eyesore in one of the loveliest parts of Newcastle. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| As a recent former resident of the area I strongly objection to this development. The size of the building is unsuitable for an already overpopulated area. There are not enough parking spaces proposed. The knock on effect will be even more problems with on street parking. The building does not fit in with the culture and heritage of the area | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| The development does not "ensure the character of the area is preserved and enhanced" as outlined in the "Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990" which has already been mentioned by several other objectors. The lower Ouseburn and it's surrounding area is widely known as an area of art, music and creativity. I fail to see how a tower block that will most likely be unaffordable to most of the people that contribute to the essence of the area in any way contributes to its preservation but rather seeks to utilise the cultural value that has been grown by the local community over many years to spin a profit and transform the area into something completely different. There are already issues with access and parking in the area, which is a significant distance from the nearest Metro station and serviced only by substandard bus connections, as such the inadequate number of parking spaces that are being proposed will clearly only exacerbate these issues and introducing further traffic will only contribute to increased noise and air pollution as well as safety risks for walkers and cyclists. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| Objection on the grounds that this development would materially impact the culture of the Ouseburn area which is a treasured, valued and unique area of Newcastle and should be protected. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| As a resident of Heaton, I wish to strongly object to the Malmo quay development. Quayside and Ouseburn’s built environment is defined by distinctive buildings, many of which are historic, of different sizes and orientations. This proposed development, quite frankly is an eyesore, distracting from the other listed buildings and heritage sites. A building of this size will have a huge impact in terms of blocking sunlight and casting a shadow including significant impact on existing businesses and residential properties including Free Trade Inn and Tyne Bar. As someone who travels by car to work through the Ouseburn area as part of My commute, the traffic is already heavily congested with no easily reachable public transport. The submitted plans for Malmo Quay appear to only show 18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block, woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route 72 which runs along the Quayside. If all of the 62 proposed apartments new residents own a car, there'll be nowhere to park and will add to the already terrible congestion in the area. As a local resident I love to regularly support local business in the ouseburn, bars restaurants and ouseburn farm, seven stories, hairdressers to name a few.. I regularly struggle to park near the paces I want to visit. I worry businesses will suffer as people won't be able to park nearby. Please reconsider this development for the sake of current residents, businesses and visitors to the wonderful ouseburn area. Anna Walker, Coquet terrace. N | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| The proposed new development is completely unsuitable for the area in terms of size and scale, not to mention appearance (it's ugly as sin). It is not in-keeping with the design of other buildings in the area - many of which are of historic value - and would literally overshadow many of them. A building of this size is simply not suitable for this kind of historic area with no other high rises around. The proposed building would house a huge number of residents without providing adequate infrastructure in terms of parking and access, and would further overstress already small and already busy roads in the area. There are examples of other developments and renovations in the Ouseburn already which show that development can be done in a more sympathetic way, but unfortunately the proposed tower block would not be an example of such an approach, should it go ahead. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| The quayside and the Ouseburn are defined by historic and distinctive buildings, the proposal is is in appropriate in both size and scale. The scale of the proposal is also likely to negatively impact the enjoyment of the listed buildings and assets in the area. It is also inevitable that the proposal will have significant negative impact on the daylight received by other build info in the area. From a design perspective the proposal does not fit in with or improve the surrounding areas. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| The quayside and the Ouseburn are defined by historic and distinctive buildings, the proposal is is in appropriate in both size and scale. The scale of the proposal is also likely to negatively impact the enjoyment of the listed buildings and assets in the area. It is also inevitable that the proposal will have significant negative impact on the daylight received by other build info in the area. From a design perspective the proposal does not fit in with or improve the surrounding areas. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| The quayside and the Ouseburn are defined by historic and distinctive buildings, the proposal is is in appropriate in both size and scale. The scale of the proposal is also likely to negatively impact the enjoyment of the listed buildings and assets in the area. It is also inevitable that the proposal will have significant negative impact on the daylight received by other build info in the area. From a design perspective the proposal does not fit in with or improve the surrounding areas. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| The quayside and the Ouseburn are defined by historic and distinctive buildings, the proposal is is in appropriate in both size and scale. The scale of the proposal is also likely to negatively impact the enjoyment of the listed buildings and assets in the area. It is also inevitable that the proposal will have significant negative impact on the daylight received by other build info in the area. From a design perspective the proposal does not fit in with or improve the surrounding areas. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| The quayside and the Ouseburn are defined by historic and distinctive buildings, the proposal is is in appropriate in both size and scale. The scale of the proposal is also likely to negatively impact the enjoyment of the listed buildings and assets in the area. It is also inevitable that the proposal will have significant negative impact on the daylight received by other build info in the area. From a design perspective the proposal does not fit in with or improve the surrounding areas. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| The quayside and the Ouseburn are defined by historic and distinctive buildings, the proposal is is in appropriate in both size and scale. The scale of the proposal is also likely to negatively impact the enjoyment of the listed buildings and assets in the area. It is also inevitable that the proposal will have significant negative impact on the daylight received by other build info in the area. From a design perspective the proposal does not fit in with or improve the surrounding areas. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| Strongly object to the proposed Malmo Quay development: the scale of development is wholly inappropriate for the location; complete disregard for the loxal architectural heritage given the lack of imagination of the plans; inadequate allocation of parking spaces in relation to the numbers of units thereby causing detrimental impact to local area (congestion and pollution). | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| Strongly object to the proposed Malmo Quay development: the scale of development is wholly inappropriate for the location; complete disregard for the loxal architectural heritage given the lack of imagination of the plans; inadequate allocation of parking spaces in relation to the numbers of units thereby causing detrimental impact to local area (congestion and pollution). | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| BRIDIE BATES 24 WENTWORTH GRANGE THE GROVE GOSFORTH NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE NE3 1NL OBJECTION MALMO QUAY PROPOSAL I FULLY ENDORSE THE OBJECTIONS LISTED BELOW. The Malmo Quay proposal Fails to properly consider Newcastle council planning Policy: Q01 Quayside and Ouseburn Sub area: 3: leisure culture and tourism development that complements existing uses. Malmo proposal fails to do this, as is predominantly housing. Repositioning the Cycle hub is not adding to or improving current provision 4. Improving pedestrian and cycle access (iii): rationalising on street parking and promoting shared parking facilities. Malmo proposal shows only 18 parking spaces with no clear strategy to reduce car use and improve parking/ access for other users or residents 6: sustaining and enhancing the character of the area: re-use of vacant buildings; respecting the scale, plot sizes, topography and historic grain of the area. The Malmo proposal does none of these things and clearly contravenes this policy, by proposing an 18 storey tower block 8; enhancing the urban green infrastructure (iii): development providing green infrastructure or public spaces at Malmo Quay: The proposal does not enhance green space and public space and amenity. The current site clearly requires improvement but this proposal is not appropriate with regard to Newcastle Councils stated planning priorities and policy for the location Further representations are detailed here Further objections 1. The Scale and positioning of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for it's location. 2. Quality of design; There's very little merit in an 18 story tower block in such a prominent position. The design shows no sympathy or understanding of the context of the location. It Does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. 3. Parking; The submitted plans for Malmo Quay only include18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block. This provision woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. 4. The proposed 73 Parking Spaces on Spillers Wharf are not actually part of this application. Even then, at best they won't be available for at least 3-4 years, will also have to service the 76 apartments potentially being build there and a fully functioning carpark is being removed to create this site. Stating ‘ residents will have access’ to the ‘parking barn’ on the spillers site is no guarantee of adequate parking provision. It is ironic that the cycle hub and 72 cycle route are sited here: proposals need to increase walking and cycling provision, rather than add to the already significant car and parking issues 5. Accessibility - Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. There is no clear description of provision in the proposal to demonstrate that new residents will mot need or expect to have access to cars/ parking spaces 6. Planning Monoculture: more than sufficient/ too much private housing already exists on the quayside location: what is required is variety, not more of the same. Variations in housing design does not count- it is still housing with reduced public access. Malmo and Spillers quay proposals would see the locality dominated by private housing (with insufficient social housing provision. 7. Arguments of need for more housing do not stand in this location and the brownfield site argument is specious: there are numerous brownfield sites across Newcastle that could be developed for housing- many of them in a 1 mile radius of this proposal. The reality is the developers want this site because it will bring in more cash, not because of any claims to help solve local housing issues. 8. Lack of Environmental responsibility: Knocking down an existing building (cycle Hub) and rebuilding on Malmo quay; building a great big scrapers; new build generally with no consideration of alternative buildings for repurposing as housing. This will generate enormous quantities of Co2. There are MANY office buildings 1 mile away in the centre of Newcastle that can be repurposed as housing, for a fraction of the carbon output. 9. On 3 April 2019, the council declared a Climate Emergency to make Newcastle carbon neutral by 2030. GET ON WITH IT THEN- DON’T PAY LIP SERVICE. There is no justification for new build housing in this location in Newcastle, or any other, until repurposing and renovation options have been carried out 10. Local amenities (supermarket) will require car use or vehicle delivery, thus adding to local traffic congestion and reducing air quality. Local schools: none within reasonable waking distance. GP services, likewise. Planning design is clearly predicated on residents not adding to capacity issues on local schools and GP services. 11. Loss of public amenity- The pandemic and past 12 months have seen intense local use by residents of the nearby area: valued as a public amenity and space to socialise. The Malmo site would better developed as an accessible public space/ urban park, to extend local access and informal/ leisure use: NOT a private development that reduces local amenity 12. Cost/ benefit- the 18 story tower block is for the developers profit. There is no evidence evidence to suggest this has been considered as an appropriate scale or type of building for the location, apart from a self- fulfilling argument regarding commercial value. 13. The choice of a housing development and the location of this proposal is based on capital value of housing alone ie: maximum revenue to the developer. Considerations such as local benefit/ social value, commercial value for local hospitality / SMEs; health benefit of green space, better walking and cycling provision; educational benefit – local history, local social pride of place do not appear to have been accounted for in any kind of cohesive social/ economic cost befit analysis 14. Loss of destination/ visitor amenity: the mouth of the Ouseburn is well used by public and visitors due to its significance as a historical site and greatly admired local visual view of the river Tyne. eg: new year laser light shows 15. Iconic views of Tyne bridge and river are marketed by Newcastle- Gateshead as a destination, bringing significant value in terms of primary and secondary spend to the locality. Visitors will not come to see a tower block and some generic housing. 16. Inappropriate development on the mouth of the Ouseburn: reduces potential destination/ visitor income and reduces amenity and the significant local leisure and tourism destination value of the Ouseburn site as a whole and the quayside as a whole. This in turn will impact negatively on local businesses and trade 17. There is already sufficient/ too much private land development on the quayside and lover Ouseburn. This proposal excludes opportunity for different improvements and developments to public access and amenity. The Malmo site is ideally situated to: • Offer better local/ visitor use and access- urban park, seating, pop up café LOCAL BUSINESS etc • Offer appropriate and relevant development to tell the story and history of the Ouseburn and mouth of the Ouseburn- local history, • Create an open space to complement the linear spaces along the quayside; seating/ resting/ pop up cafes. Local events. Allow local public and visitors to enjoy the river, its views and its natural environment 18. Cycle path route 72: Already congested here and significant overlap with walking public and cycling. Access and pedestrian/ cycle use needs to be improved not restricted by yet more private development. 19. Also increased traffic/ congestion brought by the new residents has not been considered (over and above the wholly inadequate parking provision). Traffic flow here needs reducing NOT increasing. Safety, amenity air quality. BRIDIE BATES 24 WENTWORTH GRANGE THE GROVE GOSFORTH NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE NE3 1NL OBJECTION MALMO QUAY PROPOSAL I FULLY ENDORSE THE OBJECTIONS LISTED BELOW. The Malmo Quay proposal Fails to properly consider Newcastle council planning Policy: Q01 Quayside and Ouseburn Sub area: 3: leisure culture and tourism development that complements existing uses. Malmo proposal fails to do this, as is predominantly housing. Repositioning the Cycle hub is not adding to or improving current provision 4. Improving pedestrian and cycle access (iii): rationalising on street parking and promoting shared parking facilities. Malmo proposal shows only 18 parking spaces with no clear strategy to reduce car use and improve parking/ access for other users or residents 6: sustaining and enhancing the character of the area: re-use of vacant buildings; respecting the scale, plot sizes, topography and historic grain of the area. The Malmo proposal does none of these things and clearly contravenes this policy, by proposing an 18 storey tower block 8; enhancing the urban green infrastructure (iii): development providing green infrastructure or public spaces at Malmo Quay: The proposal does not enhance green space and public space and amenity. The current site clearly requires improvement but this proposal is not appropriate with regard to Newcastle Councils stated planning priorities and policy for the location Further representations are detailed here Further objections 1. The Scale and positioning of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for it's location. 2. Quality of design; There's very little merit in an 18 story tower block in such a prominent position. The design shows no sympathy or understanding of the context of the location. It Does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. 3. Parking; The submitted plans for Malmo Quay only include18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block. This provision woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. 4. The proposed 73 Parking Spaces on Spillers Wharf are not actually part of this application. Even then, at best they won't be available for at least 3-4 years, will also have to service the 76 apartments potentially being build there and a fully functioning carpark is being removed to create this site. Stating ‘ residents will have access’ to the ‘parking barn’ on the spillers site is no guarantee of adequate parking provision. It is ironic that the cycle hub and 72 cycle route are sited here: proposals need to increase walking and cycling provision, rather than add to the already significant car and parking issues 5. Accessibility - Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. There is no clear description of provision in the proposal to demonstrate that new residents will mot need or expect to have access to cars/ parking spaces 6. Planning Monoculture: more than sufficient/ too much private housing already exists on the quayside location: what is required is variety, not more of the same. Variations in housing design does not count- it is still housing with reduced public access. Malmo and Spillers quay proposals would see the locality dominated by private housing (with insufficient social housing provision. 7. Arguments of need for more housing do not stand in this location and the brownfield site argument is specious: there are numerous brownfield sites across Newcastle that could be developed for housing- many of them in a 1 mile radius of this proposal. The reality is the developers want this site because it will bring in more cash, not because of any claims to help solve local housing issues. 8. Lack of Environmental responsibility: Knocking down an existing building (cycle Hub) and rebuilding on Malmo quay; building a great big scrapers; new build generally with no consideration of alternative buildings for repurposing as housing. This will generate enormous quantities of Co2. There are MANY office buildings 1 mile away in the centre of Newcastle that can be repurposed as housing, for a fraction of the carbon output. 9. On 3 April 2019, the council declared a Climate Emergency to make Newcastle carbon neutral by 2030. GET ON WITH IT THEN- DON’T PAY LIP SERVICE. There is no justification for new build housing in this location in Newcastle, or any other, until repurposing and renovation options have been carried out 10. Local amenities (supermarket) will require car use or vehicle delivery, thus adding to local traffic congestion and reducing air quality. Local schools: none within reasonable waking distance. GP services, likewise. Planning design is clearly predicated on residents not adding to capacity issues on local schools and GP services. 11. Loss of public amenity- The pandemic and past 12 months have seen intense local use by residents of the nearby area: valued as a public amenity and space to socialise. The Malmo site would better developed as an accessible public space/ urban park, to extend local access and informal/ leisure use: NOT a private development that reduces local amenity 12. Cost/ benefit- the 18 story tower block is for the developers profit. There is no evidence evidence to suggest this has been considered as an appropriate scale or type of building for the location, apart from a self- fulfilling argument regarding commercial value. 13. The choice of a housing development and the location of this proposal is based on capital value of housing alone ie: maximum revenue to the developer. Considerations such as local benefit/ social value, commercial value for local hospitality / SMEs; health benefit of green space, better walking and cycling provision; educational benefit – local history, local social pride of place do not appear to have been accounted for in any kind of cohesive social/ economic cost befit analysis 14. Loss of destination/ visitor amenity: the mouth of the Ouseburn is well used by public and visitors due to its significance as a historical site and greatly admired local visual view of the river Tyne. eg: new year laser light shows 15. Iconic views of Tyne bridge and river are marketed by Newcastle- Gateshead as a destination, bringing significant value in terms of primary and secondary spend to the locality. Visitors will not come to see a tower block and some generic housing. 16. Inappropriate development on the mouth of the Ouseburn: reduces potential destination/ visitor income and reduces amenity and the significant local leisure and tourism destination value of the Ouseburn site as a whole and the quayside as a whole. This in turn will impact negatively on local businesses and trade 17. There is already sufficient/ too much private land development on the quayside and lover Ouseburn. This proposal excludes opportunity for different improvements and developments to public access and amenity. The Malmo site is ideally situated to: • Offer better local/ visitor use and access- urban park, seating, pop up café LOCAL BUSINESS etc • Offer appropriate and relevant development to tell the story and history of the Ouseburn and mouth of the Ouseburn- local history, • Create an open space to complement the linear spaces along the quayside; seating/ resting/ pop up cafes. Local events. Allow local public and visitors to enjoy the river, its views and its natural environment 18. Cycle path route 72: Already congested here and significant overlap with walking public and cycling. Access and pedestrian/ cycle use needs to be improved not restricted by yet more private development. 19. Also increased traffic/ congestion brought by the new residents has not been considered (over and above the wholly inadequate parking provision). Traffic flow here needs reducing NOT increasing. Safety, amenity air quality. BRIDIE BATES 24 WENTWORTH GRANGE THE GROVE GOSFORTH NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE NE3 1NL OBJECTION MALMO QUAY PROPOSAL I FULLY ENDORSE THE OBJECTIONS LISTED BELOW. The Malmo Quay proposal Fails to properly consider Newcastle council planning Policy: Q01 Quayside and Ouseburn Sub area: 3: leisure culture and tourism development that complements existing uses. Malmo proposal fails to do this, as is predominantly housing. Repositioning the Cycle hub is not adding to or improving current provision 4. Improving pedestrian and cycle access (iii): rationalising on street parking and promoting shared parking facilities. Malmo proposal shows only 18 parking spaces with no clear strategy to reduce car use and improve parking/ access for other users or residents 6: sustaining and enhancing the character of the area: re-use of vacant buildings; respecting the scale, plot sizes, topography and historic grain of the area. The Malmo proposal does none of these things and clearly contravenes this policy, by proposing an 18 storey tower block 8; enhancing the urban green infrastructure (iii): development providing green infrastructure or public spaces at Malmo Quay: The proposal does not enhance green space and public space and amenity. The current site clearly requires improvement but this proposal is not appropriate with regard to Newcastle Councils stated planning priorities and policy for the location Further representations are detailed here Further objections 1. The Scale and positioning of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for it's location. 2. Quality of design; There's very little merit in an 18 story tower block in such a prominent position. The design shows no sympathy or understanding of the context of the location. It Does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. 3. Parking; The submitted plans for Malmo Quay only include18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block. This provision woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. 4. The proposed 73 Parking Spaces on Spillers Wharf are not actually part of this application. Even then, at best they won't be available for at least 3-4 years, will also have to service the 76 apartments potentially being build there and a fully functioning carpark is being removed to create this site. Stating ‘ residents will have access’ to the ‘parking barn’ on the spillers site is no guarantee of adequate parking provision. It is ironic that the cycle hub and 72 cycle route are sited here: proposals need to increase walking and cycling provision, rather than add to the already significant car and parking issues 5. Accessibility - Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. There is no clear description of provision in the proposal to demonstrate that new residents will mot need or expect to have access to cars/ parking spaces 6. Planning Monoculture: more than sufficient/ too much private housing already exists on the quayside location: what is required is variety, not more of the same. Variations in housing design does not count- it is still housing with reduced public access. Malmo and Spillers quay proposals would see the locality dominated by private housing (with insufficient social housing provision. 7. Arguments of need for more housing do not stand in this location and the brownfield site argument is specious: there are numerous brownfield sites across Newcastle that could be developed for housing- many of them in a 1 mile radius of this proposal. The reality is the developers want this site because it will bring in more cash, not because of any claims to help solve local housing issues. 8. Lack of Environmental responsibility: Knocking down an existing building (cycle Hub) and rebuilding on Malmo quay; building a great big scrapers; new build generally with no consideration of alternative buildings for repurposing as housing. This will generate enormous quantities of Co2. There are MANY office buildings 1 mile away in the centre of Newcastle that can be repurposed as housing, for a fraction of the carbon output. 9. On 3 April 2019, the council declared a Climate Emergency to make Newcastle carbon neutral by 2030. GET ON WITH IT THEN- DON’T PAY LIP SERVICE. There is no justification for new build housing in this location in Newcastle, or any other, until repurposing and renovation options have been carried out 10. Local amenities (supermarket) will require car use or vehicle delivery, thus adding to local traffic congestion and reducing air quality. Local schools: none within reasonable waking distance. GP services, likewise. Planning design is clearly predicated on residents not adding to capacity issues on local schools and GP services. 11. Loss of public amenity- The pandemic and past 12 months have seen intense local use by residents of the nearby area: valued as a public amenity and space to socialise. The Malmo site would better developed as an accessible public space/ urban park, to extend local access and informal/ leisure use: NOT a private development that reduces local amenity 12. Cost/ benefit- the 18 story tower block is for the developers profit. There is no evidence evidence to suggest this has been considered as an appropriate scale or type of building for the location, apart from a self- fulfilling argument regarding commercial value. 13. The choice of a housing development and the location of this proposal is based on capital value of housing alone ie: maximum revenue to the developer. Considerations such as local benefit/ social value, commercial value for local hospitality / SMEs; health benefit of green space, better walking and cycling provision; educational benefit – local history, local social pride of place do not appear to have been accounted for in any kind of cohesive social/ economic cost befit analysis 14. Loss of destination/ visitor amenity: the mouth of the Ouseburn is well used by public and visitors due to its significance as a historical site and greatly admired local visual view of the river Tyne. eg: new year laser light shows 15. Iconic views of Tyne bridge and river are marketed by Newcastle- Gateshead as a destination, bringing significant value in terms of primary and secondary spend to the locality. Visitors will not come to see a tower block and some generic housing. 16. Inappropriate development on the mouth of the Ouseburn: reduces potential destination/ visitor income and reduces amenity and the significant local leisure and tourism destination value of the Ouseburn site as a whole and the quayside as a whole. This in turn will impact negatively on local businesses and trade 17. There is already sufficient/ too much private land development on the quayside and lover Ouseburn. This proposal excludes opportunity for different improvements and developments to public access and amenity. The Malmo site is ideally situated to: • Offer better local/ visitor use and access- urban park, seating, pop up café LOCAL BUSINESS etc • Offer appropriate and relevant development to tell the story and history of the Ouseburn and mouth of the Ouseburn- local history, • Create an open space to complement the linear spaces along the quayside; seating/ resting/ pop up cafes. Local events. Allow local public and visitors to enjoy the river, its views and its natural environment 18. Cycle path route 72: Already congested here and significant overlap with walking public and cycling. Access and pedestrian/ cycle use needs to be improved not restricted by yet more private development. 19. Also increased traffic/ congestion brought by the new residents has not been considered (over and above the wholly inadequate parking provision). Traffic flow here needs reducing NOT increasing. Safety, amenity air quality. OBJECTION MALMO QUAY PROPOSAL I FULLY ENDORSE THE OBJECTIONS LISTED BELOW. The Malmo Quay proposal Fails to properly consider Newcastle council planning Policy: Q01 Quayside and Ouseburn Sub area: Further objections 1The Scale and positioning of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for it's location. 2. Quality of design; There's very little merit in an 18 story tower block in such a prominent position. The design shows no sympathy or understanding of the context of the location. It Does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. 3. Parking; The submitted plans for Malmo Quay only include18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block. This provision woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. 4. The proposed 73 Parking Spaces on Spillers Wharf are not actually part of this application. Even then, at best they won't be available for at least 3-4 years, will also have to service the 76 apartments potentially being build there and a fully functioning carpark is being removed to create this site. Stating ‘ residents will have access’ to the ‘parking barn’ on the spillers site is no guarantee of adequate parking provision. It is ironic that the cycle hub and 72 cycle route are sited here: proposals need to increase walking and cycling provision, rather than add to the already significant car and parking issues 5. Accessibility - Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. There is no clear description of provision in the proposal to demonstrate that new residents will mot need or expect to have access to cars/ parking spaces 6. Planning Monoculture: more than sufficient/ too much private housing already exists on the quayside location: what is required is variety, not more of the same. Variations in housing design does not count- it is still housing with reduced public access. Malmo and Spillers quay proposals would see the locality dominated by private housing (with insufficient social housing provision. 7. Arguments of need for more housing do not stand in this location and the brownfield site argument is specious: there are numerous brownfield sites across Newcastle that could be developed for housing- many of them in a 1 mile radius of this proposal. The reality is the developers want this site because it will bring in more cash, not because of any claims to help solve local housing issues. 8. Lack of Environmental responsibility: Knocking down an existing building (cycle Hub) and rebuilding on Malmo quay; building a great big scrapers; new build generally with no consideration of alternative buildings for repurposing as housing. This will generate enormous quantities of Co2. There are MANY office buildings 1 mile away in the centre of Newcastle that can be repurposed as housing, for a fraction of the carbon output. 9. On 3 April 2019, the council declared a Climate Emergency to make Newcastle carbon neutral by 2030. GET ON WITH IT THEN- DON’T PAY LIP SERVICE. There is no justification for new build housing in this location in Newcastle, or any other, until repurposing and renovation options have been carried out 10. Local amenities (supermarket) will require car use or vehicle delivery, thus adding to local traffic congestion and reducing air quality. Local schools: none within reasonable waking distance. GP services, likewise. Planning design is clearly predicated on residents not adding to capacity issues on local schools and GP services. 11. Loss of public amenity- The pandemic and past 12 months have seen intense local use by residents of the nearby area: valued as a public amenity and space to socialise. The Malmo site would better developed as an accessible public space/ urban park, to extend local access and informal/ leisure use: NOT a private development that reduces local amenity 12. Cost/ benefit- the 18 story tower block is for the developers profit. There is no evidence evidence to suggest this has been considered as an appropriate scale or type of building for the location, apart from a self- fulfilling argument regarding commercial value. 13. The choice of a housing development and the location of this proposal is based on capital value of housing alone ie: maximum revenue to the developer. Considerations such as local benefit/ social value, commercial value for local hospitality / SMEs; health benefit of green space, better walking and cycling provision; educational benefit – local history, local social pride of place do not appear to have been accounted for in any kind of cohesive social/ economic cost befit analysis 14. Loss of destination/ visitor amenity: the mouth of the Ouseburn is well used by public and visitors due to its significance as a historical site and greatly admired local visual view of the river Tyne. eg: new year laser light shows 15. Iconic views of Tyne bridge and river are marketed by Newcastle- Gateshead as a destination, bringing significant value in terms of primary and secondary spend to the locality. Visitors will not come to see a tower block and some generic housing. 16. Inappropriate development on the mouth of the Ouseburn: reduces potential destination/ visitor income and reduces amenity and the significant local leisure and tourism destination value of the Ouseburn site as a whole and the quayside as a whole. This in turn will impact negatively on local businesses and trade 17. There is already sufficient/ too much private land development on the quayside and lover Ouseburn. This proposal excludes opportunity for different improvements and developments to public access and amenity. The Malmo site is ideally situated to: • Offer better local/ visitor use and access- urban park, seating, pop up café LOCAL BUSINESS etc • Offer appropriate and relevant development to tell the story and history of the Ouseburn and mouth of the Ouseburn- local history, • Create an open space to complement the linear spaces along the quayside; seating/ resting/ pop up cafes. Local events. Allow local public and visitors to enjoy the river, its views and its natural environment 18. Cycle path route 72: Already congested here and significant overlap with walking public and cycling. Access and pedestrian/ cycle use needs to be improved not restricted by yet more private development. 19. Also increased traffic/ congestion brought by the new residents has not been considered (over and above the wholly inadequate parking provision). Traffic flow here needs reducing NOT increasing. Safety, amenity air quality. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| BRIDIE BATES 24 WENTWORTH GRANGE THE GROVE GOSFORTH NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE NE3 1NL OBJECTION MALMO QUAY PROPOSAL I FULLY ENDORSE THE OBJECTIONS LISTED BELOW. The Malmo Quay proposal Fails to properly consider Newcastle council planning Policy: Q01 Quayside and Ouseburn Sub area: 3: leisure culture and tourism development that complements existing uses. Malmo proposal fails to do this, as is predominantly housing. Repositioning the Cycle hub is not adding to or improving current provision 4. Improving pedestrian and cycle access (iii): rationalising on street parking and promoting shared parking facilities. Malmo proposal shows only 18 parking spaces with no clear strategy to reduce car use and improve parking/ access for other users or residents 6: sustaining and enhancing the character of the area: re-use of vacant buildings; respecting the scale, plot sizes, topography and historic grain of the area. The Malmo proposal does none of these things and clearly contravenes this policy, by proposing an 18 storey tower block 8; enhancing the urban green infrastructure (iii): development providing green infrastructure or public spaces at Malmo Quay: The proposal does not enhance green space and public space and amenity. The current site clearly requires improvement but this proposal is not appropriate with regard to Newcastle Councils stated planning priorities and policy for the location Further representations are detailed here Further objections 1. The Scale and positioning of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for it's location. 2. Quality of design; There's very little merit in an 18 story tower block in such a prominent position. The design shows no sympathy or understanding of the context of the location. It Does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. 3. Parking; The submitted plans for Malmo Quay only include18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block. This provision woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. 4. The proposed 73 Parking Spaces on Spillers Wharf are not actually part of this application. Even then, at best they won't be available for at least 3-4 years, will also have to service the 76 apartments potentially being build there and a fully functioning carpark is being removed to create this site. Stating ‘ residents will have access’ to the ‘parking barn’ on the spillers site is no guarantee of adequate parking provision. It is ironic that the cycle hub and 72 cycle route are sited here: proposals need to increase walking and cycling provision, rather than add to the already significant car and parking issues 5. Accessibility - Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. There is no clear description of provision in the proposal to demonstrate that new residents will mot need or expect to have access to cars/ parking spaces 6. Planning Monoculture: more than sufficient/ too much private housing already exists on the quayside location: what is required is variety, not more of the same. Variations in housing design does not count- it is still housing with reduced public access. Malmo and Spillers quay proposals would see the locality dominated by private housing (with insufficient social housing provision. 7. Arguments of need for more housing do not stand in this location and the brownfield site argument is specious: there are numerous brownfield sites across Newcastle that could be developed for housing- many of them in a 1 mile radius of this proposal. The reality is the developers want this site because it will bring in more cash, not because of any claims to help solve local housing issues. 8. Lack of Environmental responsibility: Knocking down an existing building (cycle Hub) and rebuilding on Malmo quay; building a great big scrapers; new build generally with no consideration of alternative buildings for repurposing as housing. This will generate enormous quantities of Co2. There are MANY office buildings 1 mile away in the centre of Newcastle that can be repurposed as housing, for a fraction of the carbon output. 9. On 3 April 2019, the council declared a Climate Emergency to make Newcastle carbon neutral by 2030. GET ON WITH IT THEN- DON’T PAY LIP SERVICE. There is no justification for new build housing in this location in Newcastle, or any other, until repurposing and renovation options have been carried out 10. Local amenities (supermarket) will require car use or vehicle delivery, thus adding to local traffic congestion and reducing air quality. Local schools: none within reasonable waking distance. GP services, likewise. Planning design is clearly predicated on residents not adding to capacity issues on local schools and GP services. 11. Loss of public amenity- The pandemic and past 12 months have seen intense local use by residents of the nearby area: valued as a public amenity and space to socialise. The Malmo site would better developed as an accessible public space/ urban park, to extend local access and informal/ leisure use: NOT a private development that reduces local amenity 12. Cost/ benefit- the 18 story tower block is for the developers profit. There is no evidence evidence to suggest this has been considered as an appropriate scale or type of building for the location, apart from a self- fulfilling argument regarding commercial value. 13. The choice of a housing development and the location of this proposal is based on capital value of housing alone ie: maximum revenue to the developer. Considerations such as local benefit/ social value, commercial value for local hospitality / SMEs; health benefit of green space, better walking and cycling provision; educational benefit – local history, local social pride of place do not appear to have been accounted for in any kind of cohesive social/ economic cost befit analysis 14. Loss of destination/ visitor amenity: the mouth of the Ouseburn is well used by public and visitors due to its significance as a historical site and greatly admired local visual view of the river Tyne. eg: new year laser light shows 15. Iconic views of Tyne bridge and river are marketed by Newcastle- Gateshead as a destination, bringing significant value in terms of primary and secondary spend to the locality. Visitors will not come to see a tower block and some generic housing. 16. Inappropriate development on the mouth of the Ouseburn: reduces potential destination/ visitor income and reduces amenity and the significant local leisure and tourism destination value of the Ouseburn site as a whole and the quayside as a whole. This in turn will impact negatively on local businesses and trade 17. There is already sufficient/ too much private land development on the quayside and lover Ouseburn. This proposal excludes opportunity for different improvements and developments to public access and amenity. The Malmo site is ideally situated to: • Offer better local/ visitor use and access- urban park, seating, pop up café LOCAL BUSINESS etc • Offer appropriate and relevant development to tell the story and history of the Ouseburn and mouth of the Ouseburn- local history, • Create an open space to complement the linear spaces along the quayside; seating/ resting/ pop up cafes. Local events. Allow local public and visitors to enjoy the river, its views and its natural environment 18. Cycle path route 72: Already congested here and significant overlap with walking public and cycling. Access and pedestrian/ cycle use needs to be improved not restricted by yet more private development. 19. Also increased traffic/ congestion brought by the new residents has not been considered (over and above the wholly inadequate parking provision). Traffic flow here needs reducing NOT increasing. Safety, amenity air quality. BRIDIE BATES 24 WENTWORTH GRANGE THE GROVE GOSFORTH NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE NE3 1NL OBJECTION MALMO QUAY PROPOSAL I FULLY ENDORSE THE OBJECTIONS LISTED BELOW. The Malmo Quay proposal Fails to properly consider Newcastle council planning Policy: Q01 Quayside and Ouseburn Sub area: 3: leisure culture and tourism development that complements existing uses. Malmo proposal fails to do this, as is predominantly housing. Repositioning the Cycle hub is not adding to or improving current provision 4. Improving pedestrian and cycle access (iii): rationalising on street parking and promoting shared parking facilities. Malmo proposal shows only 18 parking spaces with no clear strategy to reduce car use and improve parking/ access for other users or residents 6: sustaining and enhancing the character of the area: re-use of vacant buildings; respecting the scale, plot sizes, topography and historic grain of the area. The Malmo proposal does none of these things and clearly contravenes this policy, by proposing an 18 storey tower block 8; enhancing the urban green infrastructure (iii): development providing green infrastructure or public spaces at Malmo Quay: The proposal does not enhance green space and public space and amenity. The current site clearly requires improvement but this proposal is not appropriate with regard to Newcastle Councils stated planning priorities and policy for the location Further representations are detailed here Further objections 1. The Scale and positioning of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for it's location. 2. Quality of design; There's very little merit in an 18 story tower block in such a prominent position. The design shows no sympathy or understanding of the context of the location. It Does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. 3. Parking; The submitted plans for Malmo Quay only include18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block. This provision woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. 4. The proposed 73 Parking Spaces on Spillers Wharf are not actually part of this application. Even then, at best they won't be available for at least 3-4 years, will also have to service the 76 apartments potentially being build there and a fully functioning carpark is being removed to create this site. Stating ‘ residents will have access’ to the ‘parking barn’ on the spillers site is no guarantee of adequate parking provision. It is ironic that the cycle hub and 72 cycle route are sited here: proposals need to increase walking and cycling provision, rather than add to the already significant car and parking issues 5. Accessibility - Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. There is no clear description of provision in the proposal to demonstrate that new residents will mot need or expect to have access to cars/ parking spaces 6. Planning Monoculture: more than sufficient/ too much private housing already exists on the quayside location: what is required is variety, not more of the same. Variations in housing design does not count- it is still housing with reduced public access. Malmo and Spillers quay proposals would see the locality dominated by private housing (with insufficient social housing provision. 7. Arguments of need for more housing do not stand in this location and the brownfield site argument is specious: there are numerous brownfield sites across Newcastle that could be developed for housing- many of them in a 1 mile radius of this proposal. The reality is the developers want this site because it will bring in more cash, not because of any claims to help solve local housing issues. 8. Lack of Environmental responsibility: Knocking down an existing building (cycle Hub) and rebuilding on Malmo quay; building a great big scrapers; new build generally with no consideration of alternative buildings for repurposing as housing. This will generate enormous quantities of Co2. There are MANY office buildings 1 mile away in the centre of Newcastle that can be repurposed as housing, for a fraction of the carbon output. 9. On 3 April 2019, the council declared a Climate Emergency to make Newcastle carbon neutral by 2030. GET ON WITH IT THEN- DON’T PAY LIP SERVICE. There is no justification for new build housing in this location in Newcastle, or any other, until repurposing and renovation options have been carried out 10. Local amenities (supermarket) will require car use or vehicle delivery, thus adding to local traffic congestion and reducing air quality. Local schools: none within reasonable waking distance. GP services, likewise. Planning design is clearly predicated on residents not adding to capacity issues on local schools and GP services. 11. Loss of public amenity- The pandemic and past 12 months have seen intense local use by residents of the nearby area: valued as a public amenity and space to socialise. The Malmo site would better developed as an accessible public space/ urban park, to extend local access and informal/ leisure use: NOT a private development that reduces local amenity 12. Cost/ benefit- the 18 story tower block is for the developers profit. There is no evidence evidence to suggest this has been considered as an appropriate scale or type of building for the location, apart from a self- fulfilling argument regarding commercial value. 13. The choice of a housing development and the location of this proposal is based on capital value of housing alone ie: maximum revenue to the developer. Considerations such as local benefit/ social value, commercial value for local hospitality / SMEs; health benefit of green space, better walking and cycling provision; educational benefit – local history, local social pride of place do not appear to have been accounted for in any kind of cohesive social/ economic cost befit analysis 14. Loss of destination/ visitor amenity: the mouth of the Ouseburn is well used by public and visitors due to its significance as a historical site and greatly admired local visual view of the river Tyne. eg: new year laser light shows 15. Iconic views of Tyne bridge and river are marketed by Newcastle- Gateshead as a destination, bringing significant value in terms of primary and secondary spend to the locality. Visitors will not come to see a tower block and some generic housing. 16. Inappropriate development on the mouth of the Ouseburn: reduces potential destination/ visitor income and reduces amenity and the significant local leisure and tourism destination value of the Ouseburn site as a whole and the quayside as a whole. This in turn will impact negatively on local businesses and trade 17. There is already sufficient/ too much private land development on the quayside and lover Ouseburn. This proposal excludes opportunity for different improvements and developments to public access and amenity. The Malmo site is ideally situated to: • Offer better local/ visitor use and access- urban park, seating, pop up café LOCAL BUSINESS etc • Offer appropriate and relevant development to tell the story and history of the Ouseburn and mouth of the Ouseburn- local history, • Create an open space to complement the linear spaces along the quayside; seating/ resting/ pop up cafes. Local events. Allow local public and visitors to enjoy the river, its views and its natural environment 18. Cycle path route 72: Already congested here and significant overlap with walking public and cycling. Access and pedestrian/ cycle use needs to be improved not restricted by yet more private development. 19. Also increased traffic/ congestion brought by the new residents has not been considered (over and above the wholly inadequate parking provision). Traffic flow here needs reducing NOT increasing. Safety, amenity air quality. BRIDIE BATES 24 WENTWORTH GRANGE THE GROVE GOSFORTH NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE NE3 1NL OBJECTION MALMO QUAY PROPOSAL I FULLY ENDORSE THE OBJECTIONS LISTED BELOW. The Malmo Quay proposal Fails to properly consider Newcastle council planning Policy: Q01 Quayside and Ouseburn Sub area: 3: leisure culture and tourism development that complements existing uses. Malmo proposal fails to do this, as is predominantly housing. Repositioning the Cycle hub is not adding to or improving current provision 4. Improving pedestrian and cycle access (iii): rationalising on street parking and promoting shared parking facilities. Malmo proposal shows only 18 parking spaces with no clear strategy to reduce car use and improve parking/ access for other users or residents 6: sustaining and enhancing the character of the area: re-use of vacant buildings; respecting the scale, plot sizes, topography and historic grain of the area. The Malmo proposal does none of these things and clearly contravenes this policy, by proposing an 18 storey tower block 8; enhancing the urban green infrastructure (iii): development providing green infrastructure or public spaces at Malmo Quay: The proposal does not enhance green space and public space and amenity. The current site clearly requires improvement but this proposal is not appropriate with regard to Newcastle Councils stated planning priorities and policy for the location Further representations are detailed here Further objections 1. The Scale and positioning of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for it's location. 2. Quality of design; There's very little merit in an 18 story tower block in such a prominent position. The design shows no sympathy or understanding of the context of the location. It Does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. 3. Parking; The submitted plans for Malmo Quay only include18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block. This provision woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. 4. The proposed 73 Parking Spaces on Spillers Wharf are not actually part of this application. Even then, at best they won't be available for at least 3-4 years, will also have to service the 76 apartments potentially being build there and a fully functioning carpark is being removed to create this site. Stating ‘ residents will have access’ to the ‘parking barn’ on the spillers site is no guarantee of adequate parking provision. It is ironic that the cycle hub and 72 cycle route are sited here: proposals need to increase walking and cycling provision, rather than add to the already significant car and parking issues 5. Accessibility - Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. There is no clear description of provision in the proposal to demonstrate that new residents will mot need or expect to have access to cars/ parking spaces 6. Planning Monoculture: more than sufficient/ too much private housing already exists on the quayside location: what is required is variety, not more of the same. Variations in housing design does not count- it is still housing with reduced public access. Malmo and Spillers quay proposals would see the locality dominated by private housing (with insufficient social housing provision. 7. Arguments of need for more housing do not stand in this location and the brownfield site argument is specious: there are numerous brownfield sites across Newcastle that could be developed for housing- many of them in a 1 mile radius of this proposal. The reality is the developers want this site because it will bring in more cash, not because of any claims to help solve local housing issues. 8. Lack of Environmental responsibility: Knocking down an existing building (cycle Hub) and rebuilding on Malmo quay; building a great big scrapers; new build generally with no consideration of alternative buildings for repurposing as housing. This will generate enormous quantities of Co2. There are MANY office buildings 1 mile away in the centre of Newcastle that can be repurposed as housing, for a fraction of the carbon output. 9. On 3 April 2019, the council declared a Climate Emergency to make Newcastle carbon neutral by 2030. GET ON WITH IT THEN- DON’T PAY LIP SERVICE. There is no justification for new build housing in this location in Newcastle, or any other, until repurposing and renovation options have been carried out 10. Local amenities (supermarket) will require car use or vehicle delivery, thus adding to local traffic congestion and reducing air quality. Local schools: none within reasonable waking distance. GP services, likewise. Planning design is clearly predicated on residents not adding to capacity issues on local schools and GP services. 11. Loss of public amenity- The pandemic and past 12 months have seen intense local use by residents of the nearby area: valued as a public amenity and space to socialise. The Malmo site would better developed as an accessible public space/ urban park, to extend local access and informal/ leisure use: NOT a private development that reduces local amenity 12. Cost/ benefit- the 18 story tower block is for the developers profit. There is no evidence evidence to suggest this has been considered as an appropriate scale or type of building for the location, apart from a self- fulfilling argument regarding commercial value. 13. The choice of a housing development and the location of this proposal is based on capital value of housing alone ie: maximum revenue to the developer. Considerations such as local benefit/ social value, commercial value for local hospitality / SMEs; health benefit of green space, better walking and cycling provision; educational benefit – local history, local social pride of place do not appear to have been accounted for in any kind of cohesive social/ economic cost befit analysis 14. Loss of destination/ visitor amenity: the mouth of the Ouseburn is well used by public and visitors due to its significance as a historical site and greatly admired local visual view of the river Tyne. eg: new year laser light shows 15. Iconic views of Tyne bridge and river are marketed by Newcastle- Gateshead as a destination, bringing significant value in terms of primary and secondary spend to the locality. Visitors will not come to see a tower block and some generic housing. 16. Inappropriate development on the mouth of the Ouseburn: reduces potential destination/ visitor income and reduces amenity and the significant local leisure and tourism destination value of the Ouseburn site as a whole and the quayside as a whole. This in turn will impact negatively on local businesses and trade 17. There is already sufficient/ too much private land development on the quayside and lover Ouseburn. This proposal excludes opportunity for different improvements and developments to public access and amenity. The Malmo site is ideally situated to: • Offer better local/ visitor use and access- urban park, seating, pop up café LOCAL BUSINESS etc • Offer appropriate and relevant development to tell the story and history of the Ouseburn and mouth of the Ouseburn- local history, • Create an open space to complement the linear spaces along the quayside; seating/ resting/ pop up cafes. Local events. Allow local public and visitors to enjoy the river, its views and its natural environment 18. Cycle path route 72: Already congested here and significant overlap with walking public and cycling. Access and pedestrian/ cycle use needs to be improved not restricted by yet more private development. 19. Also increased traffic/ congestion brought by the new residents has not been considered (over and above the wholly inadequate parking provision). Traffic flow here needs reducing NOT increasing. Safety, amenity air quality. OBJECTION MALMO QUAY PROPOSAL I FULLY ENDORSE THE OBJECTIONS LISTED BELOW. The Malmo Quay proposal Fails to properly consider Newcastle council planning Policy: Q01 Quayside and Ouseburn Sub area: Further objections 1The Scale and positioning of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for it's location. 2. Quality of design; There's very little merit in an 18 story tower block in such a prominent position. The design shows no sympathy or understanding of the context of the location. It Does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. 3. Parking; The submitted plans for Malmo Quay only include18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block. This provision woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. 4. The proposed 73 Parking Spaces on Spillers Wharf are not actually part of this application. Even then, at best they won't be available for at least 3-4 years, will also have to service the 76 apartments potentially being build there and a fully functioning carpark is being removed to create this site. Stating ‘ residents will have access’ to the ‘parking barn’ on the spillers site is no guarantee of adequate parking provision. It is ironic that the cycle hub and 72 cycle route are sited here: proposals need to increase walking and cycling provision, rather than add to the already significant car and parking issues 5. Accessibility - Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. There is no clear description of provision in the proposal to demonstrate that new residents will mot need or expect to have access to cars/ parking spaces 6. Planning Monoculture: more than sufficient/ too much private housing already exists on the quayside location: what is required is variety, not more of the same. Variations in housing design does not count- it is still housing with reduced public access. Malmo and Spillers quay proposals would see the locality dominated by private housing (with insufficient social housing provision. 7. Arguments of need for more housing do not stand in this location and the brownfield site argument is specious: there are numerous brownfield sites across Newcastle that could be developed for housing- many of them in a 1 mile radius of this proposal. The reality is the developers want this site because it will bring in more cash, not because of any claims to help solve local housing issues. 8. Lack of Environmental responsibility: Knocking down an existing building (cycle Hub) and rebuilding on Malmo quay; building a great big scrapers; new build generally with no consideration of alternative buildings for repurposing as housing. This will generate enormous quantities of Co2. There are MANY office buildings 1 mile away in the centre of Newcastle that can be repurposed as housing, for a fraction of the carbon output. 9. On 3 April 2019, the council declared a Climate Emergency to make Newcastle carbon neutral by 2030. GET ON WITH IT THEN- DON’T PAY LIP SERVICE. There is no justification for new build housing in this location in Newcastle, or any other, until repurposing and renovation options have been carried out 10. Local amenities (supermarket) will require car use or vehicle delivery, thus adding to local traffic congestion and reducing air quality. Local schools: none within reasonable waking distance. GP services, likewise. Planning design is clearly predicated on residents not adding to capacity issues on local schools and GP services. 11. Loss of public amenity- The pandemic and past 12 months have seen intense local use by residents of the nearby area: valued as a public amenity and space to socialise. The Malmo site would better developed as an accessible public space/ urban park, to extend local access and informal/ leisure use: NOT a private development that reduces local amenity 12. Cost/ benefit- the 18 story tower block is for the developers profit. There is no evidence evidence to suggest this has been considered as an appropriate scale or type of building for the location, apart from a self- fulfilling argument regarding commercial value. 13. The choice of a housing development and the location of this proposal is based on capital value of housing alone ie: maximum revenue to the developer. Considerations such as local benefit/ social value, commercial value for local hospitality / SMEs; health benefit of green space, better walking and cycling provision; educational benefit – local history, local social pride of place do not appear to have been accounted for in any kind of cohesive social/ economic cost befit analysis 14. Loss of destination/ visitor amenity: the mouth of the Ouseburn is well used by public and visitors due to its significance as a historical site and greatly admired local visual view of the river Tyne. eg: new year laser light shows 15. Iconic views of Tyne bridge and river are marketed by Newcastle- Gateshead as a destination, bringing significant value in terms of primary and secondary spend to the locality. Visitors will not come to see a tower block and some generic housing. 16. Inappropriate development on the mouth of the Ouseburn: reduces potential destination/ visitor income and reduces amenity and the significant local leisure and tourism destination value of the Ouseburn site as a whole and the quayside as a whole. This in turn will impact negatively on local businesses and trade 17. There is already sufficient/ too much private land development on the quayside and lover Ouseburn. This proposal excludes opportunity for different improvements and developments to public access and amenity. The Malmo site is ideally situated to: • Offer better local/ visitor use and access- urban park, seating, pop up café LOCAL BUSINESS etc • Offer appropriate and relevant development to tell the story and history of the Ouseburn and mouth of the Ouseburn- local history, • Create an open space to complement the linear spaces along the quayside; seating/ resting/ pop up cafes. Local events. Allow local public and visitors to enjoy the river, its views and its natural environment 18. Cycle path route 72: Already congested here and significant overlap with walking public and cycling. Access and pedestrian/ cycle use needs to be improved not restricted by yet more private development. 19. Also increased traffic/ congestion brought by the new residents has not been considered (over and above the wholly inadequate parking provision). Traffic flow here needs reducing NOT increasing. Safety, amenity air quality. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| BRIDIE BATES 24 WENTWORTH GRANGE THE GROVE GOSFORTH NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE NE3 1NL OBJECTION MALMO QUAY PROPOSAL I FULLY ENDORSE THE OBJECTIONS LISTED BELOW. The Malmo Quay proposal Fails to properly consider Newcastle council planning Policy: Q01 Quayside and Ouseburn Sub area: 3: leisure culture and tourism development that complements existing uses. Malmo proposal fails to do this, as is predominantly housing. Repositioning the Cycle hub is not adding to or improving current provision 4. Improving pedestrian and cycle access (iii): rationalising on street parking and promoting shared parking facilities. Malmo proposal shows only 18 parking spaces with no clear strategy to reduce car use and improve parking/ access for other users or residents 6: sustaining and enhancing the character of the area: re-use of vacant buildings; respecting the scale, plot sizes, topography and historic grain of the area. The Malmo proposal does none of these things and clearly contravenes this policy, by proposing an 18 storey tower block 8; enhancing the urban green infrastructure (iii): development providing green infrastructure or public spaces at Malmo Quay: The proposal does not enhance green space and public space and amenity. The current site clearly requires improvement but this proposal is not appropriate with regard to Newcastle Councils stated planning priorities and policy for the location Further representations are detailed here Further objections 1. The Scale and positioning of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for it's location. 2. Quality of design; There's very little merit in an 18 story tower block in such a prominent position. The design shows no sympathy or understanding of the context of the location. It Does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. 3. Parking; The submitted plans for Malmo Quay only include18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block. This provision woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. 4. The proposed 73 Parking Spaces on Spillers Wharf are not actually part of this application. Even then, at best they won't be available for at least 3-4 years, will also have to service the 76 apartments potentially being build there and a fully functioning carpark is being removed to create this site. Stating ‘ residents will have access’ to the ‘parking barn’ on the spillers site is no guarantee of adequate parking provision. It is ironic that the cycle hub and 72 cycle route are sited here: proposals need to increase walking and cycling provision, rather than add to the already significant car and parking issues 5. Accessibility - Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. There is no clear description of provision in the proposal to demonstrate that new residents will mot need or expect to have access to cars/ parking spaces 6. Planning Monoculture: more than sufficient/ too much private housing already exists on the quayside location: what is required is variety, not more of the same. Variations in housing design does not count- it is still housing with reduced public access. Malmo and Spillers quay proposals would see the locality dominated by private housing (with insufficient social housing provision. 7. Arguments of need for more housing do not stand in this location and the brownfield site argument is specious: there are numerous brownfield sites across Newcastle that could be developed for housing- many of them in a 1 mile radius of this proposal. The reality is the developers want this site because it will bring in more cash, not because of any claims to help solve local housing issues. 8. Lack of Environmental responsibility: Knocking down an existing building (cycle Hub) and rebuilding on Malmo quay; building a great big scrapers; new build generally with no consideration of alternative buildings for repurposing as housing. This will generate enormous quantities of Co2. There are MANY office buildings 1 mile away in the centre of Newcastle that can be repurposed as housing, for a fraction of the carbon output. 9. On 3 April 2019, the council declared a Climate Emergency to make Newcastle carbon neutral by 2030. GET ON WITH IT THEN- DON’T PAY LIP SERVICE. There is no justification for new build housing in this location in Newcastle, or any other, until repurposing and renovation options have been carried out 10. Local amenities (supermarket) will require car use or vehicle delivery, thus adding to local traffic congestion and reducing air quality. Local schools: none within reasonable waking distance. GP services, likewise. Planning design is clearly predicated on residents not adding to capacity issues on local schools and GP services. 11. Loss of public amenity- The pandemic and past 12 months have seen intense local use by residents of the nearby area: valued as a public amenity and space to socialise. The Malmo site would better developed as an accessible public space/ urban park, to extend local access and informal/ leisure use: NOT a private development that reduces local amenity 12. Cost/ benefit- the 18 story tower block is for the developers profit. There is no evidence evidence to suggest this has been considered as an appropriate scale or type of building for the location, apart from a self- fulfilling argument regarding commercial value. 13. The choice of a housing development and the location of this proposal is based on capital value of housing alone ie: maximum revenue to the developer. Considerations such as local benefit/ social value, commercial value for local hospitality / SMEs; health benefit of green space, better walking and cycling provision; educational benefit – local history, local social pride of place do not appear to have been accounted for in any kind of cohesive social/ economic cost befit analysis 14. Loss of destination/ visitor amenity: the mouth of the Ouseburn is well used by public and visitors due to its significance as a historical site and greatly admired local visual view of the river Tyne. eg: new year laser light shows 15. Iconic views of Tyne bridge and river are marketed by Newcastle- Gateshead as a destination, bringing significant value in terms of primary and secondary spend to the locality. Visitors will not come to see a tower block and some generic housing. 16. Inappropriate development on the mouth of the Ouseburn: reduces potential destination/ visitor income and reduces amenity and the significant local leisure and tourism destination value of the Ouseburn site as a whole and the quayside as a whole. This in turn will impact negatively on local businesses and trade 17. There is already sufficient/ too much private land development on the quayside and lover Ouseburn. This proposal excludes opportunity for different improvements and developments to public access and amenity. The Malmo site is ideally situated to: • Offer better local/ visitor use and access- urban park, seating, pop up café LOCAL BUSINESS etc • Offer appropriate and relevant development to tell the story and history of the Ouseburn and mouth of the Ouseburn- local history, • Create an open space to complement the linear spaces along the quayside; seating/ resting/ pop up cafes. Local events. Allow local public and visitors to enjoy the river, its views and its natural environment 18. Cycle path route 72: Already congested here and significant overlap with walking public and cycling. Access and pedestrian/ cycle use needs to be improved not restricted by yet more private development. 19. Also increased traffic/ congestion brought by the new residents has not been considered (over and above the wholly inadequate parking provision). Traffic flow here needs reducing NOT increasing. Safety, amenity air quality. BRIDIE BATES 24 WENTWORTH GRANGE THE GROVE GOSFORTH NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE NE3 1NL OBJECTION MALMO QUAY PROPOSAL I FULLY ENDORSE THE OBJECTIONS LISTED BELOW. The Malmo Quay proposal Fails to properly consider Newcastle council planning Policy: Q01 Quayside and Ouseburn Sub area: 3: leisure culture and tourism development that complements existing uses. Malmo proposal fails to do this, as is predominantly housing. Repositioning the Cycle hub is not adding to or improving current provision 4. Improving pedestrian and cycle access (iii): rationalising on street parking and promoting shared parking facilities. Malmo proposal shows only 18 parking spaces with no clear strategy to reduce car use and improve parking/ access for other users or residents 6: sustaining and enhancing the character of the area: re-use of vacant buildings; respecting the scale, plot sizes, topography and historic grain of the area. The Malmo proposal does none of these things and clearly contravenes this policy, by proposing an 18 storey tower block 8; enhancing the urban green infrastructure (iii): development providing green infrastructure or public spaces at Malmo Quay: The proposal does not enhance green space and public space and amenity. The current site clearly requires improvement but this proposal is not appropriate with regard to Newcastle Councils stated planning priorities and policy for the location Further representations are detailed here Further objections 1. The Scale and positioning of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for it's location. 2. Quality of design; There's very little merit in an 18 story tower block in such a prominent position. The design shows no sympathy or understanding of the context of the location. It Does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. 3. Parking; The submitted plans for Malmo Quay only include18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block. This provision woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. 4. The proposed 73 Parking Spaces on Spillers Wharf are not actually part of this application. Even then, at best they won't be available for at least 3-4 years, will also have to service the 76 apartments potentially being build there and a fully functioning carpark is being removed to create this site. Stating ‘ residents will have access’ to the ‘parking barn’ on the spillers site is no guarantee of adequate parking provision. It is ironic that the cycle hub and 72 cycle route are sited here: proposals need to increase walking and cycling provision, rather than add to the already significant car and parking issues 5. Accessibility - Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. There is no clear description of provision in the proposal to demonstrate that new residents will mot need or expect to have access to cars/ parking spaces 6. Planning Monoculture: more than sufficient/ too much private housing already exists on the quayside location: what is required is variety, not more of the same. Variations in housing design does not count- it is still housing with reduced public access. Malmo and Spillers quay proposals would see the locality dominated by private housing (with insufficient social housing provision. 7. Arguments of need for more housing do not stand in this location and the brownfield site argument is specious: there are numerous brownfield sites across Newcastle that could be developed for housing- many of them in a 1 mile radius of this proposal. The reality is the developers want this site because it will bring in more cash, not because of any claims to help solve local housing issues. 8. Lack of Environmental responsibility: Knocking down an existing building (cycle Hub) and rebuilding on Malmo quay; building a great big scrapers; new build generally with no consideration of alternative buildings for repurposing as housing. This will generate enormous quantities of Co2. There are MANY office buildings 1 mile away in the centre of Newcastle that can be repurposed as housing, for a fraction of the carbon output. 9. On 3 April 2019, the council declared a Climate Emergency to make Newcastle carbon neutral by 2030. GET ON WITH IT THEN- DON’T PAY LIP SERVICE. There is no justification for new build housing in this location in Newcastle, or any other, until repurposing and renovation options have been carried out 10. Local amenities (supermarket) will require car use or vehicle delivery, thus adding to local traffic congestion and reducing air quality. Local schools: none within reasonable waking distance. GP services, likewise. Planning design is clearly predicated on residents not adding to capacity issues on local schools and GP services. 11. Loss of public amenity- The pandemic and past 12 months have seen intense local use by residents of the nearby area: valued as a public amenity and space to socialise. The Malmo site would better developed as an accessible public space/ urban park, to extend local access and informal/ leisure use: NOT a private development that reduces local amenity 12. Cost/ benefit- the 18 story tower block is for the developers profit. There is no evidence evidence to suggest this has been considered as an appropriate scale or type of building for the location, apart from a self- fulfilling argument regarding commercial value. 13. The choice of a housing development and the location of this proposal is based on capital value of housing alone ie: maximum revenue to the developer. Considerations such as local benefit/ social value, commercial value for local hospitality / SMEs; health benefit of green space, better walking and cycling provision; educational benefit – local history, local social pride of place do not appear to have been accounted for in any kind of cohesive social/ economic cost befit analysis 14. Loss of destination/ visitor amenity: the mouth of the Ouseburn is well used by public and visitors due to its significance as a historical site and greatly admired local visual view of the river Tyne. eg: new year laser light shows 15. Iconic views of Tyne bridge and river are marketed by Newcastle- Gateshead as a destination, bringing significant value in terms of primary and secondary spend to the locality. Visitors will not come to see a tower block and some generic housing. 16. Inappropriate development on the mouth of the Ouseburn: reduces potential destination/ visitor income and reduces amenity and the significant local leisure and tourism destination value of the Ouseburn site as a whole and the quayside as a whole. This in turn will impact negatively on local businesses and trade 17. There is already sufficient/ too much private land development on the quayside and lover Ouseburn. This proposal excludes opportunity for different improvements and developments to public access and amenity. The Malmo site is ideally situated to: • Offer better local/ visitor use and access- urban park, seating, pop up café LOCAL BUSINESS etc • Offer appropriate and relevant development to tell the story and history of the Ouseburn and mouth of the Ouseburn- local history, • Create an open space to complement the linear spaces along the quayside; seating/ resting/ pop up cafes. Local events. Allow local public and visitors to enjoy the river, its views and its natural environment 18. Cycle path route 72: Already congested here and significant overlap with walking public and cycling. Access and pedestrian/ cycle use needs to be improved not restricted by yet more private development. 19. Also increased traffic/ congestion brought by the new residents has not been considered (over and above the wholly inadequate parking provision). Traffic flow here needs reducing NOT increasing. Safety, amenity air quality. BRIDIE BATES 24 WENTWORTH GRANGE THE GROVE GOSFORTH NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE NE3 1NL OBJECTION MALMO QUAY PROPOSAL I FULLY ENDORSE THE OBJECTIONS LISTED BELOW. The Malmo Quay proposal Fails to properly consider Newcastle council planning Policy: Q01 Quayside and Ouseburn Sub area: 3: leisure culture and tourism development that complements existing uses. Malmo proposal fails to do this, as is predominantly housing. Repositioning the Cycle hub is not adding to or improving current provision 4. Improving pedestrian and cycle access (iii): rationalising on street parking and promoting shared parking facilities. Malmo proposal shows only 18 parking spaces with no clear strategy to reduce car use and improve parking/ access for other users or residents 6: sustaining and enhancing the character of the area: re-use of vacant buildings; respecting the scale, plot sizes, topography and historic grain of the area. The Malmo proposal does none of these things and clearly contravenes this policy, by proposing an 18 storey tower block 8; enhancing the urban green infrastructure (iii): development providing green infrastructure or public spaces at Malmo Quay: The proposal does not enhance green space and public space and amenity. The current site clearly requires improvement but this proposal is not appropriate with regard to Newcastle Councils stated planning priorities and policy for the location Further representations are detailed here Further objections 1. The Scale and positioning of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for it's location. 2. Quality of design; There's very little merit in an 18 story tower block in such a prominent position. The design shows no sympathy or understanding of the context of the location. It Does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. 3. Parking; The submitted plans for Malmo Quay only include18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block. This provision woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. 4. The proposed 73 Parking Spaces on Spillers Wharf are not actually part of this application. Even then, at best they won't be available for at least 3-4 years, will also have to service the 76 apartments potentially being build there and a fully functioning carpark is being removed to create this site. Stating ‘ residents will have access’ to the ‘parking barn’ on the spillers site is no guarantee of adequate parking provision. It is ironic that the cycle hub and 72 cycle route are sited here: proposals need to increase walking and cycling provision, rather than add to the already significant car and parking issues 5. Accessibility - Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. There is no clear description of provision in the proposal to demonstrate that new residents will mot need or expect to have access to cars/ parking spaces 6. Planning Monoculture: more than sufficient/ too much private housing already exists on the quayside location: what is required is variety, not more of the same. Variations in housing design does not count- it is still housing with reduced public access. Malmo and Spillers quay proposals would see the locality dominated by private housing (with insufficient social housing provision. 7. Arguments of need for more housing do not stand in this location and the brownfield site argument is specious: there are numerous brownfield sites across Newcastle that could be developed for housing- many of them in a 1 mile radius of this proposal. The reality is the developers want this site because it will bring in more cash, not because of any claims to help solve local housing issues. 8. Lack of Environmental responsibility: Knocking down an existing building (cycle Hub) and rebuilding on Malmo quay; building a great big scrapers; new build generally with no consideration of alternative buildings for repurposing as housing. This will generate enormous quantities of Co2. There are MANY office buildings 1 mile away in the centre of Newcastle that can be repurposed as housing, for a fraction of the carbon output. 9. On 3 April 2019, the council declared a Climate Emergency to make Newcastle carbon neutral by 2030. GET ON WITH IT THEN- DON’T PAY LIP SERVICE. There is no justification for new build housing in this location in Newcastle, or any other, until repurposing and renovation options have been carried out 10. Local amenities (supermarket) will require car use or vehicle delivery, thus adding to local traffic congestion and reducing air quality. Local schools: none within reasonable waking distance. GP services, likewise. Planning design is clearly predicated on residents not adding to capacity issues on local schools and GP services. 11. Loss of public amenity- The pandemic and past 12 months have seen intense local use by residents of the nearby area: valued as a public amenity and space to socialise. The Malmo site would better developed as an accessible public space/ urban park, to extend local access and informal/ leisure use: NOT a private development that reduces local amenity 12. Cost/ benefit- the 18 story tower block is for the developers profit. There is no evidence evidence to suggest this has been considered as an appropriate scale or type of building for the location, apart from a self- fulfilling argument regarding commercial value. 13. The choice of a housing development and the location of this proposal is based on capital value of housing alone ie: maximum revenue to the developer. Considerations such as local benefit/ social value, commercial value for local hospitality / SMEs; health benefit of green space, better walking and cycling provision; educational benefit – local history, local social pride of place do not appear to have been accounted for in any kind of cohesive social/ economic cost befit analysis 14. Loss of destination/ visitor amenity: the mouth of the Ouseburn is well used by public and visitors due to its significance as a historical site and greatly admired local visual view of the river Tyne. eg: new year laser light shows 15. Iconic views of Tyne bridge and river are marketed by Newcastle- Gateshead as a destination, bringing significant value in terms of primary and secondary spend to the locality. Visitors will not come to see a tower block and some generic housing. 16. Inappropriate development on the mouth of the Ouseburn: reduces potential destination/ visitor income and reduces amenity and the significant local leisure and tourism destination value of the Ouseburn site as a whole and the quayside as a whole. This in turn will impact negatively on local businesses and trade 17. There is already sufficient/ too much private land development on the quayside and lover Ouseburn. This proposal excludes opportunity for different improvements and developments to public access and amenity. The Malmo site is ideally situated to: • Offer better local/ visitor use and access- urban park, seating, pop up café LOCAL BUSINESS etc • Offer appropriate and relevant development to tell the story and history of the Ouseburn and mouth of the Ouseburn- local history, • Create an open space to complement the linear spaces along the quayside; seating/ resting/ pop up cafes. Local events. Allow local public and visitors to enjoy the river, its views and its natural environment 18. Cycle path route 72: Already congested here and significant overlap with walking public and cycling. Access and pedestrian/ cycle use needs to be improved not restricted by yet more private development. 19. Also increased traffic/ congestion brought by the new residents has not been considered (over and above the wholly inadequate parking provision). Traffic flow here needs reducing NOT increasing. Safety, amenity air quality. OBJECTION MALMO QUAY PROPOSAL I FULLY ENDORSE THE OBJECTIONS LISTED BELOW. The Malmo Quay proposal Fails to properly consider Newcastle council planning Policy: Q01 Quayside and Ouseburn Sub area: Further objections 1The Scale and positioning of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for it's location. 2. Quality of design; There's very little merit in an 18 story tower block in such a prominent position. The design shows no sympathy or understanding of the context of the location. It Does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. 3. Parking; The submitted plans for Malmo Quay only include18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block. This provision woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. 4. The proposed 73 Parking Spaces on Spillers Wharf are not actually part of this application. Even then, at best they won't be available for at least 3-4 years, will also have to service the 76 apartments potentially being build there and a fully functioning carpark is being removed to create this site. Stating ‘ residents will have access’ to the ‘parking barn’ on the spillers site is no guarantee of adequate parking provision. It is ironic that the cycle hub and 72 cycle route are sited here: proposals need to increase walking and cycling provision, rather than add to the already significant car and parking issues 5. Accessibility - Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. There is no clear description of provision in the proposal to demonstrate that new residents will mot need or expect to have access to cars/ parking spaces 6. Planning Monoculture: more than sufficient/ too much private housing already exists on the quayside location: what is required is variety, not more of the same. Variations in housing design does not count- it is still housing with reduced public access. Malmo and Spillers quay proposals would see the locality dominated by private housing (with insufficient social housing provision. 7. Arguments of need for more housing do not stand in this location and the brownfield site argument is specious: there are numerous brownfield sites across Newcastle that could be developed for housing- many of them in a 1 mile radius of this proposal. The reality is the developers want this site because it will bring in more cash, not because of any claims to help solve local housing issues. 8. Lack of Environmental responsibility: Knocking down an existing building (cycle Hub) and rebuilding on Malmo quay; building a great big scrapers; new build generally with no consideration of alternative buildings for repurposing as housing. This will generate enormous quantities of Co2. There are MANY office buildings 1 mile away in the centre of Newcastle that can be repurposed as housing, for a fraction of the carbon output. 9. On 3 April 2019, the council declared a Climate Emergency to make Newcastle carbon neutral by 2030. GET ON WITH IT THEN- DON’T PAY LIP SERVICE. There is no justification for new build housing in this location in Newcastle, or any other, until repurposing and renovation options have been carried out 10. Local amenities (supermarket) will require car use or vehicle delivery, thus adding to local traffic congestion and reducing air quality. Local schools: none within reasonable waking distance. GP services, likewise. Planning design is clearly predicated on residents not adding to capacity issues on local schools and GP services. 11. Loss of public amenity- The pandemic and past 12 months have seen intense local use by residents of the nearby area: valued as a public amenity and space to socialise. The Malmo site would better developed as an accessible public space/ urban park, to extend local access and informal/ leisure use: NOT a private development that reduces local amenity 12. Cost/ benefit- the 18 story tower block is for the developers profit. There is no evidence evidence to suggest this has been considered as an appropriate scale or type of building for the location, apart from a self- fulfilling argument regarding commercial value. 13. The choice of a housing development and the location of this proposal is based on capital value of housing alone ie: maximum revenue to the developer. Considerations such as local benefit/ social value, commercial value for local hospitality / SMEs; health benefit of green space, better walking and cycling provision; educational benefit – local history, local social pride of place do not appear to have been accounted for in any kind of cohesive social/ economic cost befit analysis 14. Loss of destination/ visitor amenity: the mouth of the Ouseburn is well used by public and visitors due to its significance as a historical site and greatly admired local visual view of the river Tyne. eg: new year laser light shows 15. Iconic views of Tyne bridge and river are marketed by Newcastle- Gateshead as a destination, bringing significant value in terms of primary and secondary spend to the locality. Visitors will not come to see a tower block and some generic housing. 16. Inappropriate development on the mouth of the Ouseburn: reduces potential destination/ visitor income and reduces amenity and the significant local leisure and tourism destination value of the Ouseburn site as a whole and the quayside as a whole. This in turn will impact negatively on local businesses and trade 17. There is already sufficient/ too much private land development on the quayside and lover Ouseburn. This proposal excludes opportunity for different improvements and developments to public access and amenity. The Malmo site is ideally situated to: • Offer better local/ visitor use and access- urban park, seating, pop up café LOCAL BUSINESS etc • Offer appropriate and relevant development to tell the story and history of the Ouseburn and mouth of the Ouseburn- local history, • Create an open space to complement the linear spaces along the quayside; seating/ resting/ pop up cafes. Local events. Allow local public and visitors to enjoy the river, its views and its natural environment 18. Cycle path route 72: Already congested here and significant overlap with walking public and cycling. Access and pedestrian/ cycle use needs to be improved not restricted by yet more private development. 19. Also increased traffic/ congestion brought by the new residents has not been considered (over and above the wholly inadequate parking provision). Traffic flow here needs reducing NOT increasing. Safety, amenity air quality. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| BRIDIE BATES 24 WENTWORTH GRANGE THE GROVE GOSFORTH NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE NE3 1NL OBJECTION MALMO QUAY PROPOSAL I FULLY ENDORSE THE OBJECTIONS LISTED BELOW. The Malmo Quay proposal Fails to properly consider Newcastle council planning Policy: Q01 Quayside and Ouseburn Sub area: 3: leisure culture and tourism development that complements existing uses. Malmo proposal fails to do this, as is predominantly housing. Repositioning the Cycle hub is not adding to or improving current provision 4. Improving pedestrian and cycle access (iii): rationalising on street parking and promoting shared parking facilities. Malmo proposal shows only 18 parking spaces with no clear strategy to reduce car use and improve parking/ access for other users or residents 6: sustaining and enhancing the character of the area: re-use of vacant buildings; respecting the scale, plot sizes, topography and historic grain of the area. The Malmo proposal does none of these things and clearly contravenes this policy, by proposing an 18 storey tower block 8; enhancing the urban green infrastructure (iii): development providing green infrastructure or public spaces at Malmo Quay: The proposal does not enhance green space and public space and amenity. The current site clearly requires improvement but this proposal is not appropriate with regard to Newcastle Councils stated planning priorities and policy for the location Further representations are detailed here Further objections 1. The Scale and positioning of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for it's location. 2. Quality of design; There's very little merit in an 18 story tower block in such a prominent position. The design shows no sympathy or understanding of the context of the location. It Does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. 3. Parking; The submitted plans for Malmo Quay only include18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block. This provision woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. 4. The proposed 73 Parking Spaces on Spillers Wharf are not actually part of this application. Even then, at best they won't be available for at least 3-4 years, will also have to service the 76 apartments potentially being build there and a fully functioning carpark is being removed to create this site. Stating ‘ residents will have access’ to the ‘parking barn’ on the spillers site is no guarantee of adequate parking provision. It is ironic that the cycle hub and 72 cycle route are sited here: proposals need to increase walking and cycling provision, rather than add to the already significant car and parking issues 5. Accessibility - Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. There is no clear description of provision in the proposal to demonstrate that new residents will mot need or expect to have access to cars/ parking spaces 6. Planning Monoculture: more than sufficient/ too much private housing already exists on the quayside location: what is required is variety, not more of the same. Variations in housing design does not count- it is still housing with reduced public access. Malmo and Spillers quay proposals would see the locality dominated by private housing (with insufficient social housing provision. 7. Arguments of need for more housing do not stand in this location and the brownfield site argument is specious: there are numerous brownfield sites across Newcastle that could be developed for housing- many of them in a 1 mile radius of this proposal. The reality is the developers want this site because it will bring in more cash, not because of any claims to help solve local housing issues. 8. Lack of Environmental responsibility: Knocking down an existing building (cycle Hub) and rebuilding on Malmo quay; building a great big scrapers; new build generally with no consideration of alternative buildings for repurposing as housing. This will generate enormous quantities of Co2. There are MANY office buildings 1 mile away in the centre of Newcastle that can be repurposed as housing, for a fraction of the carbon output. 9. On 3 April 2019, the council declared a Climate Emergency to make Newcastle carbon neutral by 2030. GET ON WITH IT THEN- DON’T PAY LIP SERVICE. There is no justification for new build housing in this location in Newcastle, or any other, until repurposing and renovation options have been carried out 10. Local amenities (supermarket) will require car use or vehicle delivery, thus adding to local traffic congestion and reducing air quality. Local schools: none within reasonable waking distance. GP services, likewise. Planning design is clearly predicated on residents not adding to capacity issues on local schools and GP services. 11. Loss of public amenity- The pandemic and past 12 months have seen intense local use by residents of the nearby area: valued as a public amenity and space to socialise. The Malmo site would better developed as an accessible public space/ urban park, to extend local access and informal/ leisure use: NOT a private development that reduces local amenity 12. Cost/ benefit- the 18 story tower block is for the developers profit. There is no evidence evidence to suggest this has been considered as an appropriate scale or type of building for the location, apart from a self- fulfilling argument regarding commercial value. 13. The choice of a housing development and the location of this proposal is based on capital value of housing alone ie: maximum revenue to the developer. Considerations such as local benefit/ social value, commercial value for local hospitality / SMEs; health benefit of green space, better walking and cycling provision; educational benefit – local history, local social pride of place do not appear to have been accounted for in any kind of cohesive social/ economic cost befit analysis 14. Loss of destination/ visitor amenity: the mouth of the Ouseburn is well used by public and visitors due to its significance as a historical site and greatly admired local visual view of the river Tyne. eg: new year laser light shows 15. Iconic views of Tyne bridge and river are marketed by Newcastle- Gateshead as a destination, bringing significant value in terms of primary and secondary spend to the locality. Visitors will not come to see a tower block and some generic housing. 16. Inappropriate development on the mouth of the Ouseburn: reduces potential destination/ visitor income and reduces amenity and the significant local leisure and tourism destination value of the Ouseburn site as a whole and the quayside as a whole. This in turn will impact negatively on local businesses and trade 17. There is already sufficient/ too much private land development on the quayside and lover Ouseburn. This proposal excludes opportunity for different improvements and developments to public access and amenity. The Malmo site is ideally situated to: • Offer better local/ visitor use and access- urban park, seating, pop up café LOCAL BUSINESS etc • Offer appropriate and relevant development to tell the story and history of the Ouseburn and mouth of the Ouseburn- local history, • Create an open space to complement the linear spaces along the quayside; seating/ resting/ pop up cafes. Local events. Allow local public and visitors to enjoy the river, its views and its natural environment 18. Cycle path route 72: Already congested here and significant overlap with walking public and cycling. Access and pedestrian/ cycle use needs to be improved not restricted by yet more private development. 19. Also increased traffic/ congestion brought by the new residents has not been considered (over and above the wholly inadequate parking provision). Traffic flow here needs reducing NOT increasing. Safety, amenity air quality. BRIDIE BATES 24 WENTWORTH GRANGE THE GROVE GOSFORTH NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE NE3 1NL OBJECTION MALMO QUAY PROPOSAL I FULLY ENDORSE THE OBJECTIONS LISTED BELOW. The Malmo Quay proposal Fails to properly consider Newcastle council planning Policy: Q01 Quayside and Ouseburn Sub area: 3: leisure culture and tourism development that complements existing uses. Malmo proposal fails to do this, as is predominantly housing. Repositioning the Cycle hub is not adding to or improving current provision 4. Improving pedestrian and cycle access (iii): rationalising on street parking and promoting shared parking facilities. Malmo proposal shows only 18 parking spaces with no clear strategy to reduce car use and improve parking/ access for other users or residents 6: sustaining and enhancing the character of the area: re-use of vacant buildings; respecting the scale, plot sizes, topography and historic grain of the area. The Malmo proposal does none of these things and clearly contravenes this policy, by proposing an 18 storey tower block 8; enhancing the urban green infrastructure (iii): development providing green infrastructure or public spaces at Malmo Quay: The proposal does not enhance green space and public space and amenity. The current site clearly requires improvement but this proposal is not appropriate with regard to Newcastle Councils stated planning priorities and policy for the location Further representations are detailed here Further objections 1. The Scale and positioning of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for it's location. 2. Quality of design; There's very little merit in an 18 story tower block in such a prominent position. The design shows no sympathy or understanding of the context of the location. It Does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. 3. Parking; The submitted plans for Malmo Quay only include18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block. This provision woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. 4. The proposed 73 Parking Spaces on Spillers Wharf are not actually part of this application. Even then, at best they won't be available for at least 3-4 years, will also have to service the 76 apartments potentially being build there and a fully functioning carpark is being removed to create this site. Stating ‘ residents will have access’ to the ‘parking barn’ on the spillers site is no guarantee of adequate parking provision. It is ironic that the cycle hub and 72 cycle route are sited here: proposals need to increase walking and cycling provision, rather than add to the already significant car and parking issues 5. Accessibility - Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. There is no clear description of provision in the proposal to demonstrate that new residents will mot need or expect to have access to cars/ parking spaces 6. Planning Monoculture: more than sufficient/ too much private housing already exists on the quayside location: what is required is variety, not more of the same. Variations in housing design does not count- it is still housing with reduced public access. Malmo and Spillers quay proposals would see the locality dominated by private housing (with insufficient social housing provision. 7. Arguments of need for more housing do not stand in this location and the brownfield site argument is specious: there are numerous brownfield sites across Newcastle that could be developed for housing- many of them in a 1 mile radius of this proposal. The reality is the developers want this site because it will bring in more cash, not because of any claims to help solve local housing issues. 8. Lack of Environmental responsibility: Knocking down an existing building (cycle Hub) and rebuilding on Malmo quay; building a great big scrapers; new build generally with no consideration of alternative buildings for repurposing as housing. This will generate enormous quantities of Co2. There are MANY office buildings 1 mile away in the centre of Newcastle that can be repurposed as housing, for a fraction of the carbon output. 9. On 3 April 2019, the council declared a Climate Emergency to make Newcastle carbon neutral by 2030. GET ON WITH IT THEN- DON’T PAY LIP SERVICE. There is no justification for new build housing in this location in Newcastle, or any other, until repurposing and renovation options have been carried out 10. Local amenities (supermarket) will require car use or vehicle delivery, thus adding to local traffic congestion and reducing air quality. Local schools: none within reasonable waking distance. GP services, likewise. Planning design is clearly predicated on residents not adding to capacity issues on local schools and GP services. 11. Loss of public amenity- The pandemic and past 12 months have seen intense local use by residents of the nearby area: valued as a public amenity and space to socialise. The Malmo site would better developed as an accessible public space/ urban park, to extend local access and informal/ leisure use: NOT a private development that reduces local amenity 12. Cost/ benefit- the 18 story tower block is for the developers profit. There is no evidence evidence to suggest this has been considered as an appropriate scale or type of building for the location, apart from a self- fulfilling argument regarding commercial value. 13. The choice of a housing development and the location of this proposal is based on capital value of housing alone ie: maximum revenue to the developer. Considerations such as local benefit/ social value, commercial value for local hospitality / SMEs; health benefit of green space, better walking and cycling provision; educational benefit – local history, local social pride of place do not appear to have been accounted for in any kind of cohesive social/ economic cost befit analysis 14. Loss of destination/ visitor amenity: the mouth of the Ouseburn is well used by public and visitors due to its significance as a historical site and greatly admired local visual view of the river Tyne. eg: new year laser light shows 15. Iconic views of Tyne bridge and river are marketed by Newcastle- Gateshead as a destination, bringing significant value in terms of primary and secondary spend to the locality. Visitors will not come to see a tower block and some generic housing. 16. Inappropriate development on the mouth of the Ouseburn: reduces potential destination/ visitor income and reduces amenity and the significant local leisure and tourism destination value of the Ouseburn site as a whole and the quayside as a whole. This in turn will impact negatively on local businesses and trade 17. There is already sufficient/ too much private land development on the quayside and lover Ouseburn. This proposal excludes opportunity for different improvements and developments to public access and amenity. The Malmo site is ideally situated to: • Offer better local/ visitor use and access- urban park, seating, pop up café LOCAL BUSINESS etc • Offer appropriate and relevant development to tell the story and history of the Ouseburn and mouth of the Ouseburn- local history, • Create an open space to complement the linear spaces along the quayside; seating/ resting/ pop up cafes. Local events. Allow local public and visitors to enjoy the river, its views and its natural environment 18. Cycle path route 72: Already congested here and significant overlap with walking public and cycling. Access and pedestrian/ cycle use needs to be improved not restricted by yet more private development. 19. Also increased traffic/ congestion brought by the new residents has not been considered (over and above the wholly inadequate parking provision). Traffic flow here needs reducing NOT increasing. Safety, amenity air quality. BRIDIE BATES 24 WENTWORTH GRANGE THE GROVE GOSFORTH NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE NE3 1NL OBJECTION MALMO QUAY PROPOSAL I FULLY ENDORSE THE OBJECTIONS LISTED BELOW. The Malmo Quay proposal Fails to properly consider Newcastle council planning Policy: Q01 Quayside and Ouseburn Sub area: 3: leisure culture and tourism development that complements existing uses. Malmo proposal fails to do this, as is predominantly housing. Repositioning the Cycle hub is not adding to or improving current provision 4. Improving pedestrian and cycle access (iii): rationalising on street parking and promoting shared parking facilities. Malmo proposal shows only 18 parking spaces with no clear strategy to reduce car use and improve parking/ access for other users or residents 6: sustaining and enhancing the character of the area: re-use of vacant buildings; respecting the scale, plot sizes, topography and historic grain of the area. The Malmo proposal does none of these things and clearly contravenes this policy, by proposing an 18 storey tower block 8; enhancing the urban green infrastructure (iii): development providing green infrastructure or public spaces at Malmo Quay: The proposal does not enhance green space and public space and amenity. The current site clearly requires improvement but this proposal is not appropriate with regard to Newcastle Councils stated planning priorities and policy for the location Further representations are detailed here Further objections 1. The Scale and positioning of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for it's location. 2. Quality of design; There's very little merit in an 18 story tower block in such a prominent position. The design shows no sympathy or understanding of the context of the location. It Does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. 3. Parking; The submitted plans for Malmo Quay only include18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block. This provision woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. 4. The proposed 73 Parking Spaces on Spillers Wharf are not actually part of this application. Even then, at best they won't be available for at least 3-4 years, will also have to service the 76 apartments potentially being build there and a fully functioning carpark is being removed to create this site. Stating ‘ residents will have access’ to the ‘parking barn’ on the spillers site is no guarantee of adequate parking provision. It is ironic that the cycle hub and 72 cycle route are sited here: proposals need to increase walking and cycling provision, rather than add to the already significant car and parking issues 5. Accessibility - Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. There is no clear description of provision in the proposal to demonstrate that new residents will mot need or expect to have access to cars/ parking spaces 6. Planning Monoculture: more than sufficient/ too much private housing already exists on the quayside location: what is required is variety, not more of the same. Variations in housing design does not count- it is still housing with reduced public access. Malmo and Spillers quay proposals would see the locality dominated by private housing (with insufficient social housing provision. 7. Arguments of need for more housing do not stand in this location and the brownfield site argument is specious: there are numerous brownfield sites across Newcastle that could be developed for housing- many of them in a 1 mile radius of this proposal. The reality is the developers want this site because it will bring in more cash, not because of any claims to help solve local housing issues. 8. Lack of Environmental responsibility: Knocking down an existing building (cycle Hub) and rebuilding on Malmo quay; building a great big scrapers; new build generally with no consideration of alternative buildings for repurposing as housing. This will generate enormous quantities of Co2. There are MANY office buildings 1 mile away in the centre of Newcastle that can be repurposed as housing, for a fraction of the carbon output. 9. On 3 April 2019, the council declared a Climate Emergency to make Newcastle carbon neutral by 2030. GET ON WITH IT THEN- DON’T PAY LIP SERVICE. There is no justification for new build housing in this location in Newcastle, or any other, until repurposing and renovation options have been carried out 10. Local amenities (supermarket) will require car use or vehicle delivery, thus adding to local traffic congestion and reducing air quality. Local schools: none within reasonable waking distance. GP services, likewise. Planning design is clearly predicated on residents not adding to capacity issues on local schools and GP services. 11. Loss of public amenity- The pandemic and past 12 months have seen intense local use by residents of the nearby area: valued as a public amenity and space to socialise. The Malmo site would better developed as an accessible public space/ urban park, to extend local access and informal/ leisure use: NOT a private development that reduces local amenity 12. Cost/ benefit- the 18 story tower block is for the developers profit. There is no evidence evidence to suggest this has been considered as an appropriate scale or type of building for the location, apart from a self- fulfilling argument regarding commercial value. 13. The choice of a housing development and the location of this proposal is based on capital value of housing alone ie: maximum revenue to the developer. Considerations such as local benefit/ social value, commercial value for local hospitality / SMEs; health benefit of green space, better walking and cycling provision; educational benefit – local history, local social pride of place do not appear to have been accounted for in any kind of cohesive social/ economic cost befit analysis 14. Loss of destination/ visitor amenity: the mouth of the Ouseburn is well used by public and visitors due to its significance as a historical site and greatly admired local visual view of the river Tyne. eg: new year laser light shows 15. Iconic views of Tyne bridge and river are marketed by Newcastle- Gateshead as a destination, bringing significant value in terms of primary and secondary spend to the locality. Visitors will not come to see a tower block and some generic housing. 16. Inappropriate development on the mouth of the Ouseburn: reduces potential destination/ visitor income and reduces amenity and the significant local leisure and tourism destination value of the Ouseburn site as a whole and the quayside as a whole. This in turn will impact negatively on local businesses and trade 17. There is already sufficient/ too much private land development on the quayside and lover Ouseburn. This proposal excludes opportunity for different improvements and developments to public access and amenity. The Malmo site is ideally situated to: • Offer better local/ visitor use and access- urban park, seating, pop up café LOCAL BUSINESS etc • Offer appropriate and relevant development to tell the story and history of the Ouseburn and mouth of the Ouseburn- local history, • Create an open space to complement the linear spaces along the quayside; seating/ resting/ pop up cafes. Local events. Allow local public and visitors to enjoy the river, its views and its natural environment 18. Cycle path route 72: Already congested here and significant overlap with walking public and cycling. Access and pedestrian/ cycle use needs to be improved not restricted by yet more private development. 19. Also increased traffic/ congestion brought by the new residents has not been considered (over and above the wholly inadequate parking provision). Traffic flow here needs reducing NOT increasing. Safety, amenity air quality. OBJECTION MALMO QUAY PROPOSAL I FULLY ENDORSE THE OBJECTIONS LISTED BELOW. The Malmo Quay proposal Fails to properly consider Newcastle council planning Policy: Q01 Quayside and Ouseburn Sub area: Further objections 1The Scale and positioning of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for it's location. 2. Quality of design; There's very little merit in an 18 story tower block in such a prominent position. The design shows no sympathy or understanding of the context of the location. It Does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. 3. Parking; The submitted plans for Malmo Quay only include18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block. This provision woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. 4. The proposed 73 Parking Spaces on Spillers Wharf are not actually part of this application. Even then, at best they won't be available for at least 3-4 years, will also have to service the 76 apartments potentially being build there and a fully functioning carpark is being removed to create this site. Stating ‘ residents will have access’ to the ‘parking barn’ on the spillers site is no guarantee of adequate parking provision. It is ironic that the cycle hub and 72 cycle route are sited here: proposals need to increase walking and cycling provision, rather than add to the already significant car and parking issues 5. Accessibility - Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. There is no clear description of provision in the proposal to demonstrate that new residents will mot need or expect to have access to cars/ parking spaces 6. Planning Monoculture: more than sufficient/ too much private housing already exists on the quayside location: what is required is variety, not more of the same. Variations in housing design does not count- it is still housing with reduced public access. Malmo and Spillers quay proposals would see the locality dominated by private housing (with insufficient social housing provision. 7. Arguments of need for more housing do not stand in this location and the brownfield site argument is specious: there are numerous brownfield sites across Newcastle that could be developed for housing- many of them in a 1 mile radius of this proposal. The reality is the developers want this site because it will bring in more cash, not because of any claims to help solve local housing issues. 8. Lack of Environmental responsibility: Knocking down an existing building (cycle Hub) and rebuilding on Malmo quay; building a great big scrapers; new build generally with no consideration of alternative buildings for repurposing as housing. This will generate enormous quantities of Co2. There are MANY office buildings 1 mile away in the centre of Newcastle that can be repurposed as housing, for a fraction of the carbon output. 9. On 3 April 2019, the council declared a Climate Emergency to make Newcastle carbon neutral by 2030. GET ON WITH IT THEN- DON’T PAY LIP SERVICE. There is no justification for new build housing in this location in Newcastle, or any other, until repurposing and renovation options have been carried out 10. Local amenities (supermarket) will require car use or vehicle delivery, thus adding to local traffic congestion and reducing air quality. Local schools: none within reasonable waking distance. GP services, likewise. Planning design is clearly predicated on residents not adding to capacity issues on local schools and GP services. 11. Loss of public amenity- The pandemic and past 12 months have seen intense local use by residents of the nearby area: valued as a public amenity and space to socialise. The Malmo site would better developed as an accessible public space/ urban park, to extend local access and informal/ leisure use: NOT a private development that reduces local amenity 12. Cost/ benefit- the 18 story tower block is for the developers profit. There is no evidence evidence to suggest this has been considered as an appropriate scale or type of building for the location, apart from a self- fulfilling argument regarding commercial value. 13. The choice of a housing development and the location of this proposal is based on capital value of housing alone ie: maximum revenue to the developer. Considerations such as local benefit/ social value, commercial value for local hospitality / SMEs; health benefit of green space, better walking and cycling provision; educational benefit – local history, local social pride of place do not appear to have been accounted for in any kind of cohesive social/ economic cost befit analysis 14. Loss of destination/ visitor amenity: the mouth of the Ouseburn is well used by public and visitors due to its significance as a historical site and greatly admired local visual view of the river Tyne. eg: new year laser light shows 15. Iconic views of Tyne bridge and river are marketed by Newcastle- Gateshead as a destination, bringing significant value in terms of primary and secondary spend to the locality. Visitors will not come to see a tower block and some generic housing. 16. Inappropriate development on the mouth of the Ouseburn: reduces potential destination/ visitor income and reduces amenity and the significant local leisure and tourism destination value of the Ouseburn site as a whole and the quayside as a whole. This in turn will impact negatively on local businesses and trade 17. There is already sufficient/ too much private land development on the quayside and lover Ouseburn. This proposal excludes opportunity for different improvements and developments to public access and amenity. The Malmo site is ideally situated to: • Offer better local/ visitor use and access- urban park, seating, pop up café LOCAL BUSINESS etc • Offer appropriate and relevant development to tell the story and history of the Ouseburn and mouth of the Ouseburn- local history, • Create an open space to complement the linear spaces along the quayside; seating/ resting/ pop up cafes. Local events. Allow local public and visitors to enjoy the river, its views and its natural environment 18. Cycle path route 72: Already congested here and significant overlap with walking public and cycling. Access and pedestrian/ cycle use needs to be improved not restricted by yet more private development. 19. Also increased traffic/ congestion brought by the new residents has not been considered (over and above the wholly inadequate parking provision). Traffic flow here needs reducing NOT increasing. Safety, amenity air quality. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| BRIDIE BATES 24 WENTWORTH GRANGE THE GROVE GOSFORTH NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE NE3 1NL OBJECTION MALMO QUAY PROPOSAL I FULLY ENDORSE THE OBJECTIONS LISTED BELOW. The Malmo Quay proposal Fails to properly consider Newcastle council planning Policy: Q01 Quayside and Ouseburn Sub area: 3: leisure culture and tourism development that complements existing uses. Malmo proposal fails to do this, as is predominantly housing. Repositioning the Cycle hub is not adding to or improving current provision 4. Improving pedestrian and cycle access (iii): rationalising on street parking and promoting shared parking facilities. Malmo proposal shows only 18 parking spaces with no clear strategy to reduce car use and improve parking/ access for other users or residents 6: sustaining and enhancing the character of the area: re-use of vacant buildings; respecting the scale, plot sizes, topography and historic grain of the area. The Malmo proposal does none of these things and clearly contravenes this policy, by proposing an 18 storey tower block 8; enhancing the urban green infrastructure (iii): development providing green infrastructure or public spaces at Malmo Quay: The proposal does not enhance green space and public space and amenity. The current site clearly requires improvement but this proposal is not appropriate with regard to Newcastle Councils stated planning priorities and policy for the location Further representations are detailed here Further objections 1. The Scale and positioning of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for it's location. 2. Quality of design; There's very little merit in an 18 story tower block in such a prominent position. The design shows no sympathy or understanding of the context of the location. It Does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. 3. Parking; The submitted plans for Malmo Quay only include18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block. This provision woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. 4. The proposed 73 Parking Spaces on Spillers Wharf are not actually part of this application. Even then, at best they won't be available for at least 3-4 years, will also have to service the 76 apartments potentially being build there and a fully functioning carpark is being removed to create this site. Stating ‘ residents will have access’ to the ‘parking barn’ on the spillers site is no guarantee of adequate parking provision. It is ironic that the cycle hub and 72 cycle route are sited here: proposals need to increase walking and cycling provision, rather than add to the already significant car and parking issues 5. Accessibility - Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. There is no clear description of provision in the proposal to demonstrate that new residents will mot need or expect to have access to cars/ parking spaces 6. Planning Monoculture: more than sufficient/ too much private housing already exists on the quayside location: what is required is variety, not more of the same. Variations in housing design does not count- it is still housing with reduced public access. Malmo and Spillers quay proposals would see the locality dominated by private housing (with insufficient social housing provision. 7. Arguments of need for more housing do not stand in this location and the brownfield site argument is specious: there are numerous brownfield sites across Newcastle that could be developed for housing- many of them in a 1 mile radius of this proposal. The reality is the developers want this site because it will bring in more cash, not because of any claims to help solve local housing issues. 8. Lack of Environmental responsibility: Knocking down an existing building (cycle Hub) and rebuilding on Malmo quay; building a great big scrapers; new build generally with no consideration of alternative buildings for repurposing as housing. This will generate enormous quantities of Co2. There are MANY office buildings 1 mile away in the centre of Newcastle that can be repurposed as housing, for a fraction of the carbon output. 9. On 3 April 2019, the council declared a Climate Emergency to make Newcastle carbon neutral by 2030. GET ON WITH IT THEN- DON’T PAY LIP SERVICE. There is no justification for new build housing in this location in Newcastle, or any other, until repurposing and renovation options have been carried out 10. Local amenities (supermarket) will require car use or vehicle delivery, thus adding to local traffic congestion and reducing air quality. Local schools: none within reasonable waking distance. GP services, likewise. Planning design is clearly predicated on residents not adding to capacity issues on local schools and GP services. 11. Loss of public amenity- The pandemic and past 12 months have seen intense local use by residents of the nearby area: valued as a public amenity and space to socialise. The Malmo site would better developed as an accessible public space/ urban park, to extend local access and informal/ leisure use: NOT a private development that reduces local amenity 12. Cost/ benefit- the 18 story tower block is for the developers profit. There is no evidence evidence to suggest this has been considered as an appropriate scale or type of building for the location, apart from a self- fulfilling argument regarding commercial value. 13. The choice of a housing development and the location of this proposal is based on capital value of housing alone ie: maximum revenue to the developer. Considerations such as local benefit/ social value, commercial value for local hospitality / SMEs; health benefit of green space, better walking and cycling provision; educational benefit – local history, local social pride of place do not appear to have been accounted for in any kind of cohesive social/ economic cost befit analysis 14. Loss of destination/ visitor amenity: the mouth of the Ouseburn is well used by public and visitors due to its significance as a historical site and greatly admired local visual view of the river Tyne. eg: new year laser light shows 15. Iconic views of Tyne bridge and river are marketed by Newcastle- Gateshead as a destination, bringing significant value in terms of primary and secondary spend to the locality. Visitors will not come to see a tower block and some generic housing. 16. Inappropriate development on the mouth of the Ouseburn: reduces potential destination/ visitor income and reduces amenity and the significant local leisure and tourism destination value of the Ouseburn site as a whole and the quayside as a whole. This in turn will impact negatively on local businesses and trade 17. There is already sufficient/ too much private land development on the quayside and lover Ouseburn. This proposal excludes opportunity for different improvements and developments to public access and amenity. The Malmo site is ideally situated to: • Offer better local/ visitor use and access- urban park, seating, pop up café LOCAL BUSINESS etc • Offer appropriate and relevant development to tell the story and history of the Ouseburn and mouth of the Ouseburn- local history, • Create an open space to complement the linear spaces along the quayside; seating/ resting/ pop up cafes. Local events. Allow local public and visitors to enjoy the river, its views and its natural environment 18. Cycle path route 72: Already congested here and significant overlap with walking public and cycling. Access and pedestrian/ cycle use needs to be improved not restricted by yet more private development. 19. Also increased traffic/ congestion brought by the new residents has not been considered (over and above the wholly inadequate parking provision). Traffic flow here needs reducing NOT increasing. Safety, amenity air quality. BRIDIE BATES 24 WENTWORTH GRANGE THE GROVE GOSFORTH NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE NE3 1NL OBJECTION MALMO QUAY PROPOSAL I FULLY ENDORSE THE OBJECTIONS LISTED BELOW. The Malmo Quay proposal Fails to properly consider Newcastle council planning Policy: Q01 Quayside and Ouseburn Sub area: 3: leisure culture and tourism development that complements existing uses. Malmo proposal fails to do this, as is predominantly housing. Repositioning the Cycle hub is not adding to or improving current provision 4. Improving pedestrian and cycle access (iii): rationalising on street parking and promoting shared parking facilities. Malmo proposal shows only 18 parking spaces with no clear strategy to reduce car use and improve parking/ access for other users or residents 6: sustaining and enhancing the character of the area: re-use of vacant buildings; respecting the scale, plot sizes, topography and historic grain of the area. The Malmo proposal does none of these things and clearly contravenes this policy, by proposing an 18 storey tower block 8; enhancing the urban green infrastructure (iii): development providing green infrastructure or public spaces at Malmo Quay: The proposal does not enhance green space and public space and amenity. The current site clearly requires improvement but this proposal is not appropriate with regard to Newcastle Councils stated planning priorities and policy for the location Further representations are detailed here Further objections 1. The Scale and positioning of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for it's location. 2. Quality of design; There's very little merit in an 18 story tower block in such a prominent position. The design shows no sympathy or understanding of the context of the location. It Does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. 3. Parking; The submitted plans for Malmo Quay only include18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block. This provision woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. 4. The proposed 73 Parking Spaces on Spillers Wharf are not actually part of this application. Even then, at best they won't be available for at least 3-4 years, will also have to service the 76 apartments potentially being build there and a fully functioning carpark is being removed to create this site. Stating ‘ residents will have access’ to the ‘parking barn’ on the spillers site is no guarantee of adequate parking provision. It is ironic that the cycle hub and 72 cycle route are sited here: proposals need to increase walking and cycling provision, rather than add to the already significant car and parking issues 5. Accessibility - Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. There is no clear description of provision in the proposal to demonstrate that new residents will mot need or expect to have access to cars/ parking spaces 6. Planning Monoculture: more than sufficient/ too much private housing already exists on the quayside location: what is required is variety, not more of the same. Variations in housing design does not count- it is still housing with reduced public access. Malmo and Spillers quay proposals would see the locality dominated by private housing (with insufficient social housing provision. 7. Arguments of need for more housing do not stand in this location and the brownfield site argument is specious: there are numerous brownfield sites across Newcastle that could be developed for housing- many of them in a 1 mile radius of this proposal. The reality is the developers want this site because it will bring in more cash, not because of any claims to help solve local housing issues. 8. Lack of Environmental responsibility: Knocking down an existing building (cycle Hub) and rebuilding on Malmo quay; building a great big scrapers; new build generally with no consideration of alternative buildings for repurposing as housing. This will generate enormous quantities of Co2. There are MANY office buildings 1 mile away in the centre of Newcastle that can be repurposed as housing, for a fraction of the carbon output. 9. On 3 April 2019, the council declared a Climate Emergency to make Newcastle carbon neutral by 2030. GET ON WITH IT THEN- DON’T PAY LIP SERVICE. There is no justification for new build housing in this location in Newcastle, or any other, until repurposing and renovation options have been carried out 10. Local amenities (supermarket) will require car use or vehicle delivery, thus adding to local traffic congestion and reducing air quality. Local schools: none within reasonable waking distance. GP services, likewise. Planning design is clearly predicated on residents not adding to capacity issues on local schools and GP services. 11. Loss of public amenity- The pandemic and past 12 months have seen intense local use by residents of the nearby area: valued as a public amenity and space to socialise. The Malmo site would better developed as an accessible public space/ urban park, to extend local access and informal/ leisure use: NOT a private development that reduces local amenity 12. Cost/ benefit- the 18 story tower block is for the developers profit. There is no evidence evidence to suggest this has been considered as an appropriate scale or type of building for the location, apart from a self- fulfilling argument regarding commercial value. 13. The choice of a housing development and the location of this proposal is based on capital value of housing alone ie: maximum revenue to the developer. Considerations such as local benefit/ social value, commercial value for local hospitality / SMEs; health benefit of green space, better walking and cycling provision; educational benefit – local history, local social pride of place do not appear to have been accounted for in any kind of cohesive social/ economic cost befit analysis 14. Loss of destination/ visitor amenity: the mouth of the Ouseburn is well used by public and visitors due to its significance as a historical site and greatly admired local visual view of the river Tyne. eg: new year laser light shows 15. Iconic views of Tyne bridge and river are marketed by Newcastle- Gateshead as a destination, bringing significant value in terms of primary and secondary spend to the locality. Visitors will not come to see a tower block and some generic housing. 16. Inappropriate development on the mouth of the Ouseburn: reduces potential destination/ visitor income and reduces amenity and the significant local leisure and tourism destination value of the Ouseburn site as a whole and the quayside as a whole. This in turn will impact negatively on local businesses and trade 17. There is already sufficient/ too much private land development on the quayside and lover Ouseburn. This proposal excludes opportunity for different improvements and developments to public access and amenity. The Malmo site is ideally situated to: • Offer better local/ visitor use and access- urban park, seating, pop up café LOCAL BUSINESS etc • Offer appropriate and relevant development to tell the story and history of the Ouseburn and mouth of the Ouseburn- local history, • Create an open space to complement the linear spaces along the quayside; seating/ resting/ pop up cafes. Local events. Allow local public and visitors to enjoy the river, its views and its natural environment 18. Cycle path route 72: Already congested here and significant overlap with walking public and cycling. Access and pedestrian/ cycle use needs to be improved not restricted by yet more private development. 19. Also increased traffic/ congestion brought by the new residents has not been considered (over and above the wholly inadequate parking provision). Traffic flow here needs reducing NOT increasing. Safety, amenity air quality. BRIDIE BATES 24 WENTWORTH GRANGE THE GROVE GOSFORTH NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE NE3 1NL OBJECTION MALMO QUAY PROPOSAL I FULLY ENDORSE THE OBJECTIONS LISTED BELOW. The Malmo Quay proposal Fails to properly consider Newcastle council planning Policy: Q01 Quayside and Ouseburn Sub area: 3: leisure culture and tourism development that complements existing uses. Malmo proposal fails to do this, as is predominantly housing. Repositioning the Cycle hub is not adding to or improving current provision 4. Improving pedestrian and cycle access (iii): rationalising on street parking and promoting shared parking facilities. Malmo proposal shows only 18 parking spaces with no clear strategy to reduce car use and improve parking/ access for other users or residents 6: sustaining and enhancing the character of the area: re-use of vacant buildings; respecting the scale, plot sizes, topography and historic grain of the area. The Malmo proposal does none of these things and clearly contravenes this policy, by proposing an 18 storey tower block 8; enhancing the urban green infrastructure (iii): development providing green infrastructure or public spaces at Malmo Quay: The proposal does not enhance green space and public space and amenity. The current site clearly requires improvement but this proposal is not appropriate with regard to Newcastle Councils stated planning priorities and policy for the location Further representations are detailed here Further objections 1. The Scale and positioning of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for it's location. 2. Quality of design; There's very little merit in an 18 story tower block in such a prominent position. The design shows no sympathy or understanding of the context of the location. It Does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. 3. Parking; The submitted plans for Malmo Quay only include18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block. This provision woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. 4. The proposed 73 Parking Spaces on Spillers Wharf are not actually part of this application. Even then, at best they won't be available for at least 3-4 years, will also have to service the 76 apartments potentially being build there and a fully functioning carpark is being removed to create this site. Stating ‘ residents will have access’ to the ‘parking barn’ on the spillers site is no guarantee of adequate parking provision. It is ironic that the cycle hub and 72 cycle route are sited here: proposals need to increase walking and cycling provision, rather than add to the already significant car and parking issues 5. Accessibility - Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. There is no clear description of provision in the proposal to demonstrate that new residents will mot need or expect to have access to cars/ parking spaces 6. Planning Monoculture: more than sufficient/ too much private housing already exists on the quayside location: what is required is variety, not more of the same. Variations in housing design does not count- it is still housing with reduced public access. Malmo and Spillers quay proposals would see the locality dominated by private housing (with insufficient social housing provision. 7. Arguments of need for more housing do not stand in this location and the brownfield site argument is specious: there are numerous brownfield sites across Newcastle that could be developed for housing- many of them in a 1 mile radius of this proposal. The reality is the developers want this site because it will bring in more cash, not because of any claims to help solve local housing issues. 8. Lack of Environmental responsibility: Knocking down an existing building (cycle Hub) and rebuilding on Malmo quay; building a great big scrapers; new build generally with no consideration of alternative buildings for repurposing as housing. This will generate enormous quantities of Co2. There are MANY office buildings 1 mile away in the centre of Newcastle that can be repurposed as housing, for a fraction of the carbon output. 9. On 3 April 2019, the council declared a Climate Emergency to make Newcastle carbon neutral by 2030. GET ON WITH IT THEN- DON’T PAY LIP SERVICE. There is no justification for new build housing in this location in Newcastle, or any other, until repurposing and renovation options have been carried out 10. Local amenities (supermarket) will require car use or vehicle delivery, thus adding to local traffic congestion and reducing air quality. Local schools: none within reasonable waking distance. GP services, likewise. Planning design is clearly predicated on residents not adding to capacity issues on local schools and GP services. 11. Loss of public amenity- The pandemic and past 12 months have seen intense local use by residents of the nearby area: valued as a public amenity and space to socialise. The Malmo site would better developed as an accessible public space/ urban park, to extend local access and informal/ leisure use: NOT a private development that reduces local amenity 12. Cost/ benefit- the 18 story tower block is for the developers profit. There is no evidence evidence to suggest this has been considered as an appropriate scale or type of building for the location, apart from a self- fulfilling argument regarding commercial value. 13. The choice of a housing development and the location of this proposal is based on capital value of housing alone ie: maximum revenue to the developer. Considerations such as local benefit/ social value, commercial value for local hospitality / SMEs; health benefit of green space, better walking and cycling provision; educational benefit – local history, local social pride of place do not appear to have been accounted for in any kind of cohesive social/ economic cost befit analysis 14. Loss of destination/ visitor amenity: the mouth of the Ouseburn is well used by public and visitors due to its significance as a historical site and greatly admired local visual view of the river Tyne. eg: new year laser light shows 15. Iconic views of Tyne bridge and river are marketed by Newcastle- Gateshead as a destination, bringing significant value in terms of primary and secondary spend to the locality. Visitors will not come to see a tower block and some generic housing. 16. Inappropriate development on the mouth of the Ouseburn: reduces potential destination/ visitor income and reduces amenity and the significant local leisure and tourism destination value of the Ouseburn site as a whole and the quayside as a whole. This in turn will impact negatively on local businesses and trade 17. There is already sufficient/ too much private land development on the quayside and lover Ouseburn. This proposal excludes opportunity for different improvements and developments to public access and amenity. The Malmo site is ideally situated to: • Offer better local/ visitor use and access- urban park, seating, pop up café LOCAL BUSINESS etc • Offer appropriate and relevant development to tell the story and history of the Ouseburn and mouth of the Ouseburn- local history, • Create an open space to complement the linear spaces along the quayside; seating/ resting/ pop up cafes. Local events. Allow local public and visitors to enjoy the river, its views and its natural environment 18. Cycle path route 72: Already congested here and significant overlap with walking public and cycling. Access and pedestrian/ cycle use needs to be improved not restricted by yet more private development. 19. Also increased traffic/ congestion brought by the new residents has not been considered (over and above the wholly inadequate parking provision). Traffic flow here needs reducing NOT increasing. Safety, amenity air quality. OBJECTION MALMO QUAY PROPOSAL I FULLY ENDORSE THE OBJECTIONS LISTED BELOW. The Malmo Quay proposal Fails to properly consider Newcastle council planning Policy: Q01 Quayside and Ouseburn Sub area: Further objections 1The Scale and positioning of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for it's location. 2. Quality of design; There's very little merit in an 18 story tower block in such a prominent position. The design shows no sympathy or understanding of the context of the location. It Does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. 3. Parking; The submitted plans for Malmo Quay only include18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block. This provision woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. 4. The proposed 73 Parking Spaces on Spillers Wharf are not actually part of this application. Even then, at best they won't be available for at least 3-4 years, will also have to service the 76 apartments potentially being build there and a fully functioning carpark is being removed to create this site. Stating ‘ residents will have access’ to the ‘parking barn’ on the spillers site is no guarantee of adequate parking provision. It is ironic that the cycle hub and 72 cycle route are sited here: proposals need to increase walking and cycling provision, rather than add to the already significant car and parking issues 5. Accessibility - Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. There is no clear description of provision in the proposal to demonstrate that new residents will mot need or expect to have access to cars/ parking spaces 6. Planning Monoculture: more than sufficient/ too much private housing already exists on the quayside location: what is required is variety, not more of the same. Variations in housing design does not count- it is still housing with reduced public access. Malmo and Spillers quay proposals would see the locality dominated by private housing (with insufficient social housing provision. 7. Arguments of need for more housing do not stand in this location and the brownfield site argument is specious: there are numerous brownfield sites across Newcastle that could be developed for housing- many of them in a 1 mile radius of this proposal. The reality is the developers want this site because it will bring in more cash, not because of any claims to help solve local housing issues. 8. Lack of Environmental responsibility: Knocking down an existing building (cycle Hub) and rebuilding on Malmo quay; building a great big scrapers; new build generally with no consideration of alternative buildings for repurposing as housing. This will generate enormous quantities of Co2. There are MANY office buildings 1 mile away in the centre of Newcastle that can be repurposed as housing, for a fraction of the carbon output. 9. On 3 April 2019, the council declared a Climate Emergency to make Newcastle carbon neutral by 2030. GET ON WITH IT THEN- DON’T PAY LIP SERVICE. There is no justification for new build housing in this location in Newcastle, or any other, until repurposing and renovation options have been carried out 10. Local amenities (supermarket) will require car use or vehicle delivery, thus adding to local traffic congestion and reducing air quality. Local schools: none within reasonable waking distance. GP services, likewise. Planning design is clearly predicated on residents not adding to capacity issues on local schools and GP services. 11. Loss of public amenity- The pandemic and past 12 months have seen intense local use by residents of the nearby area: valued as a public amenity and space to socialise. The Malmo site would better developed as an accessible public space/ urban park, to extend local access and informal/ leisure use: NOT a private development that reduces local amenity 12. Cost/ benefit- the 18 story tower block is for the developers profit. There is no evidence evidence to suggest this has been considered as an appropriate scale or type of building for the location, apart from a self- fulfilling argument regarding commercial value. 13. The choice of a housing development and the location of this proposal is based on capital value of housing alone ie: maximum revenue to the developer. Considerations such as local benefit/ social value, commercial value for local hospitality / SMEs; health benefit of green space, better walking and cycling provision; educational benefit – local history, local social pride of place do not appear to have been accounted for in any kind of cohesive social/ economic cost befit analysis 14. Loss of destination/ visitor amenity: the mouth of the Ouseburn is well used by public and visitors due to its significance as a historical site and greatly admired local visual view of the river Tyne. eg: new year laser light shows 15. Iconic views of Tyne bridge and river are marketed by Newcastle- Gateshead as a destination, bringing significant value in terms of primary and secondary spend to the locality. Visitors will not come to see a tower block and some generic housing. 16. Inappropriate development on the mouth of the Ouseburn: reduces potential destination/ visitor income and reduces amenity and the significant local leisure and tourism destination value of the Ouseburn site as a whole and the quayside as a whole. This in turn will impact negatively on local businesses and trade 17. There is already sufficient/ too much private land development on the quayside and lover Ouseburn. This proposal excludes opportunity for different improvements and developments to public access and amenity. The Malmo site is ideally situated to: • Offer better local/ visitor use and access- urban park, seating, pop up café LOCAL BUSINESS etc • Offer appropriate and relevant development to tell the story and history of the Ouseburn and mouth of the Ouseburn- local history, • Create an open space to complement the linear spaces along the quayside; seating/ resting/ pop up cafes. Local events. Allow local public and visitors to enjoy the river, its views and its natural environment 18. Cycle path route 72: Already congested here and significant overlap with walking public and cycling. Access and pedestrian/ cycle use needs to be improved not restricted by yet more private development. 19. Also increased traffic/ congestion brought by the new residents has not been considered (over and above the wholly inadequate parking provision). Traffic flow here needs reducing NOT increasing. Safety, amenity air quality. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| BRIDIE BATES 24 WENTWORTH GRANGE THE GROVE GOSFORTH NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE NE3 1NL OBJECTION MALMO QUAY PROPOSAL I FULLY ENDORSE THE OBJECTIONS LISTED BELOW. The Malmo Quay proposal Fails to properly consider Newcastle council planning Policy: Q01 Quayside and Ouseburn Sub area: 3: leisure culture and tourism development that complements existing uses. Malmo proposal fails to do this, as is predominantly housing. Repositioning the Cycle hub is not adding to or improving current provision 4. Improving pedestrian and cycle access (iii): rationalising on street parking and promoting shared parking facilities. Malmo proposal shows only 18 parking spaces with no clear strategy to reduce car use and improve parking/ access for other users or residents 6: sustaining and enhancing the character of the area: re-use of vacant buildings; respecting the scale, plot sizes, topography and historic grain of the area. The Malmo proposal does none of these things and clearly contravenes this policy, by proposing an 18 storey tower block 8; enhancing the urban green infrastructure (iii): development providing green infrastructure or public spaces at Malmo Quay: The proposal does not enhance green space and public space and amenity. The current site clearly requires improvement but this proposal is not appropriate with regard to Newcastle Councils stated planning priorities and policy for the location Further representations are detailed here Further objections 1. The Scale and positioning of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for it's location. 2. Quality of design; There's very little merit in an 18 story tower block in such a prominent position. The design shows no sympathy or understanding of the context of the location. It Does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. 3. Parking; The submitted plans for Malmo Quay only include18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block. This provision woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. 4. The proposed 73 Parking Spaces on Spillers Wharf are not actually part of this application. Even then, at best they won't be available for at least 3-4 years, will also have to service the 76 apartments potentially being build there and a fully functioning carpark is being removed to create this site. Stating ‘ residents will have access’ to the ‘parking barn’ on the spillers site is no guarantee of adequate parking provision. It is ironic that the cycle hub and 72 cycle route are sited here: proposals need to increase walking and cycling provision, rather than add to the already significant car and parking issues 5. Accessibility - Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. There is no clear description of provision in the proposal to demonstrate that new residents will mot need or expect to have access to cars/ parking spaces 6. Planning Monoculture: more than sufficient/ too much private housing already exists on the quayside location: what is required is variety, not more of the same. Variations in housing design does not count- it is still housing with reduced public access. Malmo and Spillers quay proposals would see the locality dominated by private housing (with insufficient social housing provision. 7. Arguments of need for more housing do not stand in this location and the brownfield site argument is specious: there are numerous brownfield sites across Newcastle that could be developed for housing- many of them in a 1 mile radius of this proposal. The reality is the developers want this site because it will bring in more cash, not because of any claims to help solve local housing issues. 8. Lack of Environmental responsibility: Knocking down an existing building (cycle Hub) and rebuilding on Malmo quay; building a great big scrapers; new build generally with no consideration of alternative buildings for repurposing as housing. This will generate enormous quantities of Co2. There are MANY office buildings 1 mile away in the centre of Newcastle that can be repurposed as housing, for a fraction of the carbon output. 9. On 3 April 2019, the council declared a Climate Emergency to make Newcastle carbon neutral by 2030. GET ON WITH IT THEN- DON’T PAY LIP SERVICE. There is no justification for new build housing in this location in Newcastle, or any other, until repurposing and renovation options have been carried out 10. Local amenities (supermarket) will require car use or vehicle delivery, thus adding to local traffic congestion and reducing air quality. Local schools: none within reasonable waking distance. GP services, likewise. Planning design is clearly predicated on residents not adding to capacity issues on local schools and GP services. 11. Loss of public amenity- The pandemic and past 12 months have seen intense local use by residents of the nearby area: valued as a public amenity and space to socialise. The Malmo site would better developed as an accessible public space/ urban park, to extend local access and informal/ leisure use: NOT a private development that reduces local amenity 12. Cost/ benefit- the 18 story tower block is for the developers profit. There is no evidence evidence to suggest this has been considered as an appropriate scale or type of building for the location, apart from a self- fulfilling argument regarding commercial value. 13. The choice of a housing development and the location of this proposal is based on capital value of housing alone ie: maximum revenue to the developer. Considerations such as local benefit/ social value, commercial value for local hospitality / SMEs; health benefit of green space, better walking and cycling provision; educational benefit – local history, local social pride of place do not appear to have been accounted for in any kind of cohesive social/ economic cost befit analysis 14. Loss of destination/ visitor amenity: the mouth of the Ouseburn is well used by public and visitors due to its significance as a historical site and greatly admired local visual view of the river Tyne. eg: new year laser light shows 15. Iconic views of Tyne bridge and river are marketed by Newcastle- Gateshead as a destination, bringing significant value in terms of primary and secondary spend to the locality. Visitors will not come to see a tower block and some generic housing. 16. Inappropriate development on the mouth of the Ouseburn: reduces potential destination/ visitor income and reduces amenity and the significant local leisure and tourism destination value of the Ouseburn site as a whole and the quayside as a whole. This in turn will impact negatively on local businesses and trade 17. There is already sufficient/ too much private land development on the quayside and lover Ouseburn. This proposal excludes opportunity for different improvements and developments to public access and amenity. The Malmo site is ideally situated to: • Offer better local/ visitor use and access- urban park, seating, pop up café LOCAL BUSINESS etc • Offer appropriate and relevant development to tell the story and history of the Ouseburn and mouth of the Ouseburn- local history, • Create an open space to complement the linear spaces along the quayside; seating/ resting/ pop up cafes. Local events. Allow local public and visitors to enjoy the river, its views and its natural environment 18. Cycle path route 72: Already congested here and significant overlap with walking public and cycling. Access and pedestrian/ cycle use needs to be improved not restricted by yet more private development. 19. Also increased traffic/ congestion brought by the new residents has not been considered (over and above the wholly inadequate parking provision). Traffic flow here needs reducing NOT increasing. Safety, amenity air quality. BRIDIE BATES 24 WENTWORTH GRANGE THE GROVE GOSFORTH NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE NE3 1NL OBJECTION MALMO QUAY PROPOSAL I FULLY ENDORSE THE OBJECTIONS LISTED BELOW. The Malmo Quay proposal Fails to properly consider Newcastle council planning Policy: Q01 Quayside and Ouseburn Sub area: 3: leisure culture and tourism development that complements existing uses. Malmo proposal fails to do this, as is predominantly housing. Repositioning the Cycle hub is not adding to or improving current provision 4. Improving pedestrian and cycle access (iii): rationalising on street parking and promoting shared parking facilities. Malmo proposal shows only 18 parking spaces with no clear strategy to reduce car use and improve parking/ access for other users or residents 6: sustaining and enhancing the character of the area: re-use of vacant buildings; respecting the scale, plot sizes, topography and historic grain of the area. The Malmo proposal does none of these things and clearly contravenes this policy, by proposing an 18 storey tower block 8; enhancing the urban green infrastructure (iii): development providing green infrastructure or public spaces at Malmo Quay: The proposal does not enhance green space and public space and amenity. The current site clearly requires improvement but this proposal is not appropriate with regard to Newcastle Councils stated planning priorities and policy for the location Further representations are detailed here Further objections 1. The Scale and positioning of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for it's location. 2. Quality of design; There's very little merit in an 18 story tower block in such a prominent position. The design shows no sympathy or understanding of the context of the location. It Does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. 3. Parking; The submitted plans for Malmo Quay only include18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block. This provision woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. 4. The proposed 73 Parking Spaces on Spillers Wharf are not actually part of this application. Even then, at best they won't be available for at least 3-4 years, will also have to service the 76 apartments potentially being build there and a fully functioning carpark is being removed to create this site. Stating ‘ residents will have access’ to the ‘parking barn’ on the spillers site is no guarantee of adequate parking provision. It is ironic that the cycle hub and 72 cycle route are sited here: proposals need to increase walking and cycling provision, rather than add to the already significant car and parking issues 5. Accessibility - Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. There is no clear description of provision in the proposal to demonstrate that new residents will mot need or expect to have access to cars/ parking spaces 6. Planning Monoculture: more than sufficient/ too much private housing already exists on the quayside location: what is required is variety, not more of the same. Variations in housing design does not count- it is still housing with reduced public access. Malmo and Spillers quay proposals would see the locality dominated by private housing (with insufficient social housing provision. 7. Arguments of need for more housing do not stand in this location and the brownfield site argument is specious: there are numerous brownfield sites across Newcastle that could be developed for housing- many of them in a 1 mile radius of this proposal. The reality is the developers want this site because it will bring in more cash, not because of any claims to help solve local housing issues. 8. Lack of Environmental responsibility: Knocking down an existing building (cycle Hub) and rebuilding on Malmo quay; building a great big scrapers; new build generally with no consideration of alternative buildings for repurposing as housing. This will generate enormous quantities of Co2. There are MANY office buildings 1 mile away in the centre of Newcastle that can be repurposed as housing, for a fraction of the carbon output. 9. On 3 April 2019, the council declared a Climate Emergency to make Newcastle carbon neutral by 2030. GET ON WITH IT THEN- DON’T PAY LIP SERVICE. There is no justification for new build housing in this location in Newcastle, or any other, until repurposing and renovation options have been carried out 10. Local amenities (supermarket) will require car use or vehicle delivery, thus adding to local traffic congestion and reducing air quality. Local schools: none within reasonable waking distance. GP services, likewise. Planning design is clearly predicated on residents not adding to capacity issues on local schools and GP services. 11. Loss of public amenity- The pandemic and past 12 months have seen intense local use by residents of the nearby area: valued as a public amenity and space to socialise. The Malmo site would better developed as an accessible public space/ urban park, to extend local access and informal/ leisure use: NOT a private development that reduces local amenity 12. Cost/ benefit- the 18 story tower block is for the developers profit. There is no evidence evidence to suggest this has been considered as an appropriate scale or type of building for the location, apart from a self- fulfilling argument regarding commercial value. 13. The choice of a housing development and the location of this proposal is based on capital value of housing alone ie: maximum revenue to the developer. Considerations such as local benefit/ social value, commercial value for local hospitality / SMEs; health benefit of green space, better walking and cycling provision; educational benefit – local history, local social pride of place do not appear to have been accounted for in any kind of cohesive social/ economic cost befit analysis 14. Loss of destination/ visitor amenity: the mouth of the Ouseburn is well used by public and visitors due to its significance as a historical site and greatly admired local visual view of the river Tyne. eg: new year laser light shows 15. Iconic views of Tyne bridge and river are marketed by Newcastle- Gateshead as a destination, bringing significant value in terms of primary and secondary spend to the locality. Visitors will not come to see a tower block and some generic housing. 16. Inappropriate development on the mouth of the Ouseburn: reduces potential destination/ visitor income and reduces amenity and the significant local leisure and tourism destination value of the Ouseburn site as a whole and the quayside as a whole. This in turn will impact negatively on local businesses and trade 17. There is already sufficient/ too much private land development on the quayside and lover Ouseburn. This proposal excludes opportunity for different improvements and developments to public access and amenity. The Malmo site is ideally situated to: • Offer better local/ visitor use and access- urban park, seating, pop up café LOCAL BUSINESS etc • Offer appropriate and relevant development to tell the story and history of the Ouseburn and mouth of the Ouseburn- local history, • Create an open space to complement the linear spaces along the quayside; seating/ resting/ pop up cafes. Local events. Allow local public and visitors to enjoy the river, its views and its natural environment 18. Cycle path route 72: Already congested here and significant overlap with walking public and cycling. Access and pedestrian/ cycle use needs to be improved not restricted by yet more private development. 19. Also increased traffic/ congestion brought by the new residents has not been considered (over and above the wholly inadequate parking provision). Traffic flow here needs reducing NOT increasing. Safety, amenity air quality. BRIDIE BATES 24 WENTWORTH GRANGE THE GROVE GOSFORTH NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE NE3 1NL OBJECTION MALMO QUAY PROPOSAL I FULLY ENDORSE THE OBJECTIONS LISTED BELOW. The Malmo Quay proposal Fails to properly consider Newcastle council planning Policy: Q01 Quayside and Ouseburn Sub area: 3: leisure culture and tourism development that complements existing uses. Malmo proposal fails to do this, as is predominantly housing. Repositioning the Cycle hub is not adding to or improving current provision 4. Improving pedestrian and cycle access (iii): rationalising on street parking and promoting shared parking facilities. Malmo proposal shows only 18 parking spaces with no clear strategy to reduce car use and improve parking/ access for other users or residents 6: sustaining and enhancing the character of the area: re-use of vacant buildings; respecting the scale, plot sizes, topography and historic grain of the area. The Malmo proposal does none of these things and clearly contravenes this policy, by proposing an 18 storey tower block 8; enhancing the urban green infrastructure (iii): development providing green infrastructure or public spaces at Malmo Quay: The proposal does not enhance green space and public space and amenity. The current site clearly requires improvement but this proposal is not appropriate with regard to Newcastle Councils stated planning priorities and policy for the location Further representations are detailed here Further objections 1. The Scale and positioning of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for it's location. 2. Quality of design; There's very little merit in an 18 story tower block in such a prominent position. The design shows no sympathy or understanding of the context of the location. It Does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. 3. Parking; The submitted plans for Malmo Quay only include18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block. This provision woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. 4. The proposed 73 Parking Spaces on Spillers Wharf are not actually part of this application. Even then, at best they won't be available for at least 3-4 years, will also have to service the 76 apartments potentially being build there and a fully functioning carpark is being removed to create this site. Stating ‘ residents will have access’ to the ‘parking barn’ on the spillers site is no guarantee of adequate parking provision. It is ironic that the cycle hub and 72 cycle route are sited here: proposals need to increase walking and cycling provision, rather than add to the already significant car and parking issues 5. Accessibility - Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. There is no clear description of provision in the proposal to demonstrate that new residents will mot need or expect to have access to cars/ parking spaces 6. Planning Monoculture: more than sufficient/ too much private housing already exists on the quayside location: what is required is variety, not more of the same. Variations in housing design does not count- it is still housing with reduced public access. Malmo and Spillers quay proposals would see the locality dominated by private housing (with insufficient social housing provision. 7. Arguments of need for more housing do not stand in this location and the brownfield site argument is specious: there are numerous brownfield sites across Newcastle that could be developed for housing- many of them in a 1 mile radius of this proposal. The reality is the developers want this site because it will bring in more cash, not because of any claims to help solve local housing issues. 8. Lack of Environmental responsibility: Knocking down an existing building (cycle Hub) and rebuilding on Malmo quay; building a great big scrapers; new build generally with no consideration of alternative buildings for repurposing as housing. This will generate enormous quantities of Co2. There are MANY office buildings 1 mile away in the centre of Newcastle that can be repurposed as housing, for a fraction of the carbon output. 9. On 3 April 2019, the council declared a Climate Emergency to make Newcastle carbon neutral by 2030. GET ON WITH IT THEN- DON’T PAY LIP SERVICE. There is no justification for new build housing in this location in Newcastle, or any other, until repurposing and renovation options have been carried out 10. Local amenities (supermarket) will require car use or vehicle delivery, thus adding to local traffic congestion and reducing air quality. Local schools: none within reasonable waking distance. GP services, likewise. Planning design is clearly predicated on residents not adding to capacity issues on local schools and GP services. 11. Loss of public amenity- The pandemic and past 12 months have seen intense local use by residents of the nearby area: valued as a public amenity and space to socialise. The Malmo site would better developed as an accessible public space/ urban park, to extend local access and informal/ leisure use: NOT a private development that reduces local amenity 12. Cost/ benefit- the 18 story tower block is for the developers profit. There is no evidence evidence to suggest this has been considered as an appropriate scale or type of building for the location, apart from a self- fulfilling argument regarding commercial value. 13. The choice of a housing development and the location of this proposal is based on capital value of housing alone ie: maximum revenue to the developer. Considerations such as local benefit/ social value, commercial value for local hospitality / SMEs; health benefit of green space, better walking and cycling provision; educational benefit – local history, local social pride of place do not appear to have been accounted for in any kind of cohesive social/ economic cost befit analysis 14. Loss of destination/ visitor amenity: the mouth of the Ouseburn is well used by public and visitors due to its significance as a historical site and greatly admired local visual view of the river Tyne. eg: new year laser light shows 15. Iconic views of Tyne bridge and river are marketed by Newcastle- Gateshead as a destination, bringing significant value in terms of primary and secondary spend to the locality. Visitors will not come to see a tower block and some generic housing. 16. Inappropriate development on the mouth of the Ouseburn: reduces potential destination/ visitor income and reduces amenity and the significant local leisure and tourism destination value of the Ouseburn site as a whole and the quayside as a whole. This in turn will impact negatively on local businesses and trade 17. There is already sufficient/ too much private land development on the quayside and lover Ouseburn. This proposal excludes opportunity for different improvements and developments to public access and amenity. The Malmo site is ideally situated to: • Offer better local/ visitor use and access- urban park, seating, pop up café LOCAL BUSINESS etc • Offer appropriate and relevant development to tell the story and history of the Ouseburn and mouth of the Ouseburn- local history, • Create an open space to complement the linear spaces along the quayside; seating/ resting/ pop up cafes. Local events. Allow local public and visitors to enjoy the river, its views and its natural environment 18. Cycle path route 72: Already congested here and significant overlap with walking public and cycling. Access and pedestrian/ cycle use needs to be improved not restricted by yet more private development. 19. Also increased traffic/ congestion brought by the new residents has not been considered (over and above the wholly inadequate parking provision). Traffic flow here needs reducing NOT increasing. Safety, amenity air quality. OBJECTION MALMO QUAY PROPOSAL I FULLY ENDORSE THE OBJECTIONS LISTED BELOW. The Malmo Quay proposal Fails to properly consider Newcastle council planning Policy: Q01 Quayside and Ouseburn Sub area: Further objections 1The Scale and positioning of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for it's location. 2. Quality of design; There's very little merit in an 18 story tower block in such a prominent position. The design shows no sympathy or understanding of the context of the location. It Does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. 3. Parking; The submitted plans for Malmo Quay only include18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block. This provision woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. 4. The proposed 73 Parking Spaces on Spillers Wharf are not actually part of this application. Even then, at best they won't be available for at least 3-4 years, will also have to service the 76 apartments potentially being build there and a fully functioning carpark is being removed to create this site. Stating ‘ residents will have access’ to the ‘parking barn’ on the spillers site is no guarantee of adequate parking provision. It is ironic that the cycle hub and 72 cycle route are sited here: proposals need to increase walking and cycling provision, rather than add to the already significant car and parking issues 5. Accessibility - Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. There is no clear description of provision in the proposal to demonstrate that new residents will mot need or expect to have access to cars/ parking spaces 6. Planning Monoculture: more than sufficient/ too much private housing already exists on the quayside location: what is required is variety, not more of the same. Variations in housing design does not count- it is still housing with reduced public access. Malmo and Spillers quay proposals would see the locality dominated by private housing (with insufficient social housing provision. 7. Arguments of need for more housing do not stand in this location and the brownfield site argument is specious: there are numerous brownfield sites across Newcastle that could be developed for housing- many of them in a 1 mile radius of this proposal. The reality is the developers want this site because it will bring in more cash, not because of any claims to help solve local housing issues. 8. Lack of Environmental responsibility: Knocking down an existing building (cycle Hub) and rebuilding on Malmo quay; building a great big scrapers; new build generally with no consideration of alternative buildings for repurposing as housing. This will generate enormous quantities of Co2. There are MANY office buildings 1 mile away in the centre of Newcastle that can be repurposed as housing, for a fraction of the carbon output. 9. On 3 April 2019, the council declared a Climate Emergency to make Newcastle carbon neutral by 2030. GET ON WITH IT THEN- DON’T PAY LIP SERVICE. There is no justification for new build housing in this location in Newcastle, or any other, until repurposing and renovation options have been carried out 10. Local amenities (supermarket) will require car use or vehicle delivery, thus adding to local traffic congestion and reducing air quality. Local schools: none within reasonable waking distance. GP services, likewise. Planning design is clearly predicated on residents not adding to capacity issues on local schools and GP services. 11. Loss of public amenity- The pandemic and past 12 months have seen intense local use by residents of the nearby area: valued as a public amenity and space to socialise. The Malmo site would better developed as an accessible public space/ urban park, to extend local access and informal/ leisure use: NOT a private development that reduces local amenity 12. Cost/ benefit- the 18 story tower block is for the developers profit. There is no evidence evidence to suggest this has been considered as an appropriate scale or type of building for the location, apart from a self- fulfilling argument regarding commercial value. 13. The choice of a housing development and the location of this proposal is based on capital value of housing alone ie: maximum revenue to the developer. Considerations such as local benefit/ social value, commercial value for local hospitality / SMEs; health benefit of green space, better walking and cycling provision; educational benefit – local history, local social pride of place do not appear to have been accounted for in any kind of cohesive social/ economic cost befit analysis 14. Loss of destination/ visitor amenity: the mouth of the Ouseburn is well used by public and visitors due to its significance as a historical site and greatly admired local visual view of the river Tyne. eg: new year laser light shows 15. Iconic views of Tyne bridge and river are marketed by Newcastle- Gateshead as a destination, bringing significant value in terms of primary and secondary spend to the locality. Visitors will not come to see a tower block and some generic housing. 16. Inappropriate development on the mouth of the Ouseburn: reduces potential destination/ visitor income and reduces amenity and the significant local leisure and tourism destination value of the Ouseburn site as a whole and the quayside as a whole. This in turn will impact negatively on local businesses and trade 17. There is already sufficient/ too much private land development on the quayside and lover Ouseburn. This proposal excludes opportunity for different improvements and developments to public access and amenity. The Malmo site is ideally situated to: • Offer better local/ visitor use and access- urban park, seating, pop up café LOCAL BUSINESS etc • Offer appropriate and relevant development to tell the story and history of the Ouseburn and mouth of the Ouseburn- local history, • Create an open space to complement the linear spaces along the quayside; seating/ resting/ pop up cafes. Local events. Allow local public and visitors to enjoy the river, its views and its natural environment 18. Cycle path route 72: Already congested here and significant overlap with walking public and cycling. Access and pedestrian/ cycle use needs to be improved not restricted by yet more private development. 19. Also increased traffic/ congestion brought by the new residents has not been considered (over and above the wholly inadequate parking provision). Traffic flow here needs reducing NOT increasing. Safety, amenity air quality. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| There is not enough space for a building like this. This will cause overcrowding in a very quiet corner of newcastle. Limited metro and bus links in the area so more people will need to drive and In Ouseburn we do not have enough parking as it is. Living in a new build from igloo they have not provided us with parking. Also, igloo have not provided adequate bin space for our current house. We were promised when we moved into our house that our view would not be blocked and that the Ouseburn was strict when it came to new builds and height of buildings. We love where we live now and feel fortunate to live here but there is no reason to have a sky scraper. It will stick out like a sore thumb and you need to think about people and quality of life. Years from Now will a sky scraper fit into the landscape? No. Will the apartments be filled? Likely not as people are wanting more green space. Where will all these people park!? Crime will likely increase and litter will too. Is there a plan for bin space? Igloo are very good at making something seem nice but in reality they don’t think things through properly! Think twice please as the free trade inn have been in there spot for years and deserve to keep their view also. We are new to the area but people old and new to the area do not want to live in an overcrowded area. Nature was one of the reasons we were intrigued by ouseburn and this new build is completely against nature and is so backwards in terms of future quality of life! | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| I was shocked to see the plans for this building. It is an offensive addition to the skyline for the area Does not at all fit the landscape and from living in a tower block in the city centre we constantly have drunks and vagrants trying to enter the buildings communal areas, this is close to many pubs and lesser sort after areas of Newcastle, the risks I imagine would be similar and pose a safety threat to the residents. Not to mention the potential to affect local businesses due to potential noise from later night establishments on the quayside, all too often bars have there live music liscences removed due to residents complaining The whole idea of a tower block here will affect the local dynamic in a wholly negative way | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| Hello. Ouseburn is a gem close to the heart of Newcastle, it is an area that I frequent and as such I must object to this proposed development of Malmo Quay. As someone who frequently visit Ouseburn, transport links are limited and any residents would most likely heavily rely on personal vehicles already leading to increased pollution of the local area. In addition, the current plan only 18 parking spaces for 62 apartments, which would overwhelm the currently stretched local parking. Proposed additional parking spaces are NOT part of this application and at best would only become available in 4 years and would not be sufficient for this and the proposed 76 apartments potentially being built then. The scale and design of the site is entirely out of style and scale with the area and would dominate the area. Not only is the proposed development obscenely large for the area, the design itself is horrible and uninspiring. It would impact daylight, privacy and local ecological habitats. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| I would like to strongly object to the Malmo Quay planning proposal . I've been a frequent user of the Ouseburn area for many years - in fact since the start of the restoration of many previously derelict sites. The Ouseburn has a proud record of sensitive development in sympathy with the original area and part of the attraction of visiting is the lovely location enhanced by the architecture, views and historic aspects - not to exclude the lively creative 'vibe'. This development of the Malmo quay will change the culture of the Ouseburn increasing the density of the area, increasing parking problems, increasing of use of the area as a gateway to Newcastles nightlife culture. The tower block will have a huge impact on the existing housing not just because of the visual impact but because of the transient nature of the community who are attracted to this type of housing - which will be unaffordable to most people in the area. I strongly object to this proposal. | 15/02/2022 | |
| Objection to: Planning Application 2021/2404/01/EIA Hybrid application for Malmo and Spillers Quays The Ouseburn Trust object to this planning application and would like to see it refused or withdrawn. Igloo have produced good schemes in the Ouseburn Valley with the Malings and Lower Steenberg’s Yard and we do not feel this meets the standard we have come to expect from them as a developer. The following comments capture the views of the Trust Planning and Development Group membership and of the more than 60 attendees of the public meeting hosted by the Trust. Community Engagement All of the comments the developer has received from the consultation process were included in the planning application, but it is not evident what impact these comments have had. Have they been taken into consideration? Have they influenced any changes made to the scheme? In previous schemes the Trust has been successful in shaping some features of Igloo’s proposals such as the permeability of Lower Steenberg’s Yard for pedestrians, the roofscape and material pallet. Scale, massing, heritage context and design There is an overwhelming dislike for the scheme and in particular the tower proposed for Malmo Quay in the Ouseburn community. Some members of the Trust’s Planning and Development group expressed an in-principal support for a building with some height, but one that is world class in its design, elegant and speaks to the area. No-one feels this building does. And would not, even it was only 10-storeys high. It was described as overpowering. Some felt it looked OK from the East or the West, even from the South, but from the very community in which it is located, it was felt to look too blocky, that its massing is out of proportion, that it dominates the area, much like Lime Square. It appears in this sense to be designed for a site on the Tyne quayside not a prominent site in the Ouseburn Valley. It faces away from the Ouseburn. Its pattern, rhythm, massing, relation to historic buildings explored in the Tyne Gorge study (2003) do not appear to have been taken into account. A building on a site described as world class by the developer themselves should be iconic and it was felt to be more akin to a Soviet era tower block or the Gateshead car park made famous by Get Carter than the iconic heritage buildings such as the Baltic, or even the Law Courts along the Tyne Gorge. It was not felt necessarily to be due to the material choice though. Many felt a brick building would stand the test of time better than one finished with cladding or some other solution. It does indeed lack empathy with its immediate environment. It is felt to be driven by numbers, or housing targets, as merely a residential block rather than adhering to the policy drivers around placemaking or townscape design, which its location merits and which Historic England insist are crucial to the protection and enhancement of a setting. It conflicts with scale references in Ouseburn Planning policy, heritage and conservation guidelines From a design point of view, it was suggested that a more dramatic, ‘jagged’ roofline for the town houses might help the way the tower building sits amongst, and rises out of them, especially when viewed from the East, but that the Tower still looks truncated. The chamfer was welcomed but felt to be undermined by the pronounced framing toward the top. As a result, it lacks the slenderness that might give it more elegance. It was suggested by one member that a more dramatic chamfer resulting in only two bays at the top might achieve elegance. The design of the top section, or crown, of the building should be improved. The termination of a tall building contributes to the skyline of the city and wider perception of the building. Special attention should always be given to the articulation of this part of the building. As proposed, the top section doesn’t sit comfortably with the middle section (shaft). This is because the coarse framing of the terraces creates pronounced horizontal lines that disrupt/break the vertical rhythms of the fenestration to this point. The visual relationship between the top and middle section should be harmonised. From the CGIs there is concern about building solid to void ratios in general, both on the townhouses and tower block. Larger windows, &/or larger window apertures, recessed deeply in the masonry will help give the buildings greater articulation, texture and a more open, attractive and generous appearance, as well as reinforcing the verticality of the tower. While efforts have been made to retain sight lines, the tower now dominates the panorama from key and valued viewing points, undermining the view of landmark historic buildings, bridges and the river as a whole. Malmo versus Spillers Malmo is a relatively small site for development while Spillers is quite large, yet the distribution of housing units across the proposal is almost equal. In order to achieve something more acceptable to the local community for Malmo a greater percentage of housing could be developed on Spillers. Igloo often open conversations explaining how difficult the Malmo site is to develop. If financial viability is such a challenge, should it happen? While a factor for the developer, it is not for the community. The Trust has reservations about the notion of a hybrid application, as much of the focus is on the tower building shown on Malmo quay, with little attention given to Spillers. There is concern that outline planning approval for Spillers fixes many key elements of that site in place, and in effect secures half of the planning approval required, with heights, massing and access routes no longer open to challenge when a detailed application is presented. The hybrid application doesn’t allow for the appropriate scrutiny of detail on Spillers, but it is necessary to view this now in the context of the whole development area, should a redistribution produce an acceptable outcome. The proposal is often described as better than previous offerings, but this should not be a race to the bottom. Better than before is not necessarily good enough. The Cycle Hub There is concern about the proposal to demolish the Cycle Hub building, its important mix of uses and the character they bring to the area. The provision on Malmo is insufficient to replace a café/community space which can accommodate 80 visitors with many more using the outside seating, a large bike workshop with storage, and offices for a sister organisation. Locating these thriving and valued businesses in different units undermines the current successful cross-subsidising model of operation and threatens its viability. There exists in the proposal no alternative location for community activity on this scale to take place, which is essential to a thriving community. Ouseburn derives its character from the juxtaposition of old and new buildings and a variety of uses existing in harmony. Demolishing the Hub and erecting only new buildings will erode the character of the Quay around the river mouth, that this mix brings. The 5-storey building proposed in its place will create a dark unpleasant corridor between it and the retaining wall beneath the Free Trade, similar to but higher and therefore worse than the corridor West of the river between Mariners Wharf development and the retaining wall to Horatio Street. Transport and Parking Finally, there are concerns about the impact on the transport infrastructure. The proposal for Malmo Quay contains very few parking spaces compared to the number of residential units offered. The Trust has sympathy with a move toward lower traffic neighbourhoods, and fewer cars, but expect that prospective residents will endeavour to bring more cars than there is provision for which will have a detrimental impact on the parking across the lower Ouseburn. Public Transport is relatively poor given the proximity to the city centre, with limited bus services and two Metro stations over1km away uphill. The parking barn identified for Spillers is part of a second stage yet to be worked up into a detailed planning application, so not expected until long after residents move into the accommodation on Malmo Quay. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| I wish to register my objection to this application on the grounds that it would have an inappropriate and disproportionate effect on the topography, the existing built environment and the amenity of the surrounding area. The east quayside area has a distinctive, historic character created by the rich mix of existing buildings of varied shapes, sizes and styles, new and old, including several listed buildings, and their relationship to the form of the local landscape, with the steep sided Ouseburn valley and the burn itself, leading to the level area of the riverbank. This unique built and natural environment, together with the lively cultural life it supports, as much as any of its individual buildings or landscape features, is a valuable and much-loved part of our city’s heritage, a vital element of the character of Newcastle, which has helped to make the city nationally and internationally celebrated and admired. The scale and form of the proposed development would have a disastrous effect on the environmental balance of this historic part of Newcastle. The tower in particular is completely out of proportion and unrelated in style, materials or colour to the surrounding area and its buildings, and shows no respect for its historic character or for the nature of the landscape in which it is situated. The lower-rise buildings too by nature of their massing have a bulky, dominating presence. The recent developments along both banks of the Ouseburn between the Cluny/Byker Farm area and the mouth of the burn, show a generally sympathetic choice of materials and forms and their height is offset by their location on the steep valley sides so that they sit comfortably in the topography, enhancing the experience of walking along the burn. By contrast, the proposed development on the Malmo quay, sited as it is on the flat area by the river, has a bullying presence, dominating its environment from all directions. The image of Newcastle is inextricably linked to the sight of its bridges, which are one of most important elements of its heritage. The Ouseburn has sightlines to the city centre which show the bridges at their best, from high on the valley side by the Free Trade Inn, or low down at the mouth of the burn, and this development would irrevocably destroy this major asset. (Ironically, while the design of the proposed tower would not emerge well from comparison with such landmark buildings as the Sage and the Baltic, it would block the sigh lines to them too.) The scale and location of the development would also block sunlight to the burn mouth and existing businesses and residential properties to the north and east. I am completely opposed to this application and I hope it will be rejected. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| Claire Coates (Flat F 190 Heaton Park Road, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE65AP) 2021/2404/01/EIA 'Malmo Quay' development As a resident of Newcastle I am concerned that this new development will ruin our beautiful city skyline and our areas attractiveness to tourists and potential residents. As proposed the building will be massively out of place in the area and will stand proud of all other buildings making it not only an eyesore but also overshadowing the surrounding area, putting in jeopardy the privacy of those residents and businesses around it. In comparison to the other buildings in the immediate area, it does not sit well with the character and the historic architecture that surrounds it. It will therefore diminish the attraction that is the historic architecture and character of this area of Newcastle. As a society we should also be doing EVERYTHING in our power to only generate sustainable buildings that consider the surrounding environment and the environmental impact that any new development may cause. I don't believe that the proposed development will offer any positive contribution to the environment surrounding it and will indeed hinder the small progresses we as a society and community are making to try and ensure we are being environmentally minded and sustainable. Additionally is it not well accessed by public transport making it unlikely to be desirable to residential candidates which would leave many spaces unoccupied and a waste of time, money and resources to build. I have a love for Ouseburn and the surrounding areas of Newcastle and think it is one of the jewels of Newcastle that attracts people to live, work and play in the town, by adding this monstrosity to the area you are diminishing this local gem and the potential income of its beloved businesses. I implore you to consider the views of the local people as they are the ones who are having to live with the consequences of your decision. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| I have a number of concerns surrounding the proposed development. The Malmo development, including the 18 Storey tower, is going to be situated in an area of low rise buildings. There are many listed and historical buildings in the area and the provision of a "landmark" is not necessary. This building will dominate and push much of the historical surroundings into the background, and will dramatically alter the sightline across the Ouseburn area. At the moment, the vista from the central quayside area is harmonious, with the low rise buildings on the quayside, leading up Ballast Hill where other significant buildings are visible. If this goes ahead, then this historical view will be of just another skyscraper, rather than of the area's rich history. The building is going to be incongruous amongst its company. Existing buildings are sympathetic in colour, and are largely brick, as are most of the historical buildings. In terms of Highways & Transportation - this could be a disaster for the area. The area is currently congested, with cars parked in the Horation Street area. Even if only half the proposed households own a car (and many will own 2 or more) then the situation on the streets, which are currently mixed use, is going to be horrific, in terms of parked cars obstructing the roads. There is not enough parking being considered for such a development. There are no direct public transport links - the closest bus stop will be up a steep hill, and both nearest Metro Stations are a steep 1KM minimum walk away. Bus services have recently been diverted from the area, in order to have more of the Quayside devoted to pedestrians. Newcastle is a city in a very hilly area - it is neither practical nor safe (when conditions are icy underfoot) to be walking. Thank you for your consideration. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| The proposed building work is unsuitable for the area. The plans for the look of the building are not in fitting with the surrounding area, and indeed look like something Newcastle Council would have already torn down. The building will block light to and views from local businesses, thus harming the local economy. Such a large development close to local nightlife businesses will lead to noise complaints, expenditure form the council investigating, impacts on resident lives, and potentially to local business closure or restriction on live music. The proposed car parking situation is untenable considering the limited public transport locally, with numerous businesses needing car parking. This proposal is not in fitting with the surrounding area and would be considerably detrimental to the Ouseburn. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| This application does not fit in with the rest of the Ouseburn quayside area. It’s sheer size will make it stick out like a sore thumb and it’s design does not coalesce with the mix of historical and regenerated buildings such as The Toffee Factory, which is a credit to the area. Transport links in this area are already few and far between and fair provision for parking is not included here. 18 spots for 62 proposed apartments is simply not good enough, especially when families may have more than one vehicle. This will undoubtedly lead to people piling their cars into the already shrinking number of on street and free parking spaces, meaning us that regularly visit the area for work and leisure will struggle to find ample parking when it’s already difficult as it is. As an extremely frequent visitor of the area, it also worries me that a structure of this size could impact the sunlight that some of the businesses in the area receive which whether you agree or not could have a substantial impact on their business when the weather is good. I really hope you take the public’s voice into account when making your decision. Most people do not oppose change and regeneration, but this isn’t the way to regenerate an already vibrant and diverse area. Cheers Daz Clark | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to the building of Malmo Quay. A residential block of 18 storeys will not only destroy local businesses (especially The Free Trade Inn due to the proximity and the fact that the building will block their famed view), but will no doubt create endless problems for residents of surrounding houses/flats, and visitors to the area. The 18 storey block is in no way in keeping with the surrounding area - there are no buildings outside the city centre of that height. The Quayside and Ouseburn have retained the historical architecture that makes Newcastle different from all other cities. As an extremely large new build, Malmo Quay is so ill fitting to such an environment. Is it possible that such a large building may also disturb the Kittiwakes who have spent so many years building a sizeable population? The residents in the surrounding apartment blocks will suffer tremendously by this build. Malmo Quay will create extreme overshadowing, meaning there won’t be any sunlight for those with balconies. I also personally feel that with such a large number of apartments in the block, the tower may create noise pollution for the surrounding residents. Could it also increase littering or general waste, that may then end up in the river? Further to this, such a large number of flats will create a very large traffic problem in an area, which at the moment, generally consists of pedestrians. The businesses surrounding the proposed building rely on pedestrians, and thus, such traffic would not only cause issues for the businesses, but may create additional safety issues. Not to mention, yet again, the pollution that will come from the excess vehicles in the area. In conclusion, I do not agree with this proposed development. I believe it would be extremely detrimental to the area, in every single way. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| Once again developers are attempting to foist another ugly building on the shore of Newcastle quayside. My objection to the is development is as follows. The building is extremely ugly and it’s size, style and building materials do not fit in with other buildings in the Tyne gorge. It would be more sympathetic to have a building the size and style of mariners wharf. There are already so many flats on the quayside. A development of this size is going to increase footfall in an already busy area and put additional strain on already very limited parking facilities. The Ouseburn area has a pleasant community feel which is not in keeping with a large tower block. The views down the river will be destroyed by this eyesore. It’s time this site was developed and I understand the developers problems with the site but this does not justify putting up such an ugly building. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| The height of this building is completely out of character for this location. It looks completely out of place and glaringly ugly on this landscape. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| The height of this building is completely out of character for this location. It looks completely out of place and glaringly ugly on this landscape. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| The proposed site will have huge overshadowing affecting businesses within the area like widely loved properties the Free Trade Inn and Tyne Bar that attract locals and visitors. Local residents will also be impacted by the overshadowing of their homes, decreasing desirability within the area. Additionally, loss of privacy for residents is an issue due to overlooking. This build will create an overpressured parking situation in the area. These plans seem to show only 18 spaces for the proposed 62 apartments, putting pressure on street parking and endangering riders on cycle route 72. This will also have a detrimental environmental impact as well as health implications on riders. The area’s listed buildings and heritage sites bring a lot to the area, this new building will alter the enjoyment of such spaces as Tyne Bar Public House, the Toffee Factory and the Sailors Bethal. The consideration of design does no justice for the existing site and the industrial heritage of Ouseburn and Quayside. Materials, colour scheme and construction are disturbing when placed alongside surrounding buildings and decreases the appeal of the area. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| I would ask that this proposal is rejected in its current form. The size and height of the development is wholly out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate both the local area and the skyline from afar. The height of the building will Overshadow existing nearby building casting shadow and blocking daylight. This is an historic area of the city that has developed over recent years into a characterful and lively area with social and community ideals at its heart. Nearby established bars such as the Tyne Bar which have a long tradition of supporting local musicians and performance art will be put under treat as their noise levels will not be compatible with the residential nature of this development. The proposal only include 18 parking spaces for 72 residences which will put more pressure on congestion in an already busy area with very limited public transport infrastructure and almost no local amenities meaning residents will be forced to use cars. In addition the development is close to the National Cycle route 72 which is a hugely popular route used every day by both regular cyclists and families such as my own. The route is a lovely safe environment in which to enjoy the health benefits of cycling and this would be jeopardised by the inevitable increased parking and traffic. This would clearly not be in keeping with other Council initiatives to promote cycling and sustainable transport. The Ouseburn landscape is a varied one with much valued buildings of historic significance to the city such as the Toffee Factory, Glasshouse Bridge, Tyne Bar and Free Trade pub. This unique character to the local environment would be spoilt by the sheer disproportionate scale of the Malmo Quay development. The stark 1960s communist USSR style architecture employed is not at all sympathetic to the existing environment and skyline and is unlikely to age well- look at the recent spate of demolition of concrete office blocks in the city centre. While I am not opposed to development of the site in principle, priority should be given to a scheme that is reflective of the character and historic environment, both in scale and design quality. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| This proposal would greatly impact the visual attractiveness of the area itself, greatly restrict the view across the river and of Newcastle and Gateshead quaysides. This would impact the cultural uniqueness of the Ouseburn area and its existing establishments. The design and height of the building is not consistent with the cultural or aesthetic elements of the area. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| This proposal would greatly impact the visual attractiveness of the area itself, greatly restrict the view across the river and of Newcastle and Gateshead quaysides. This would impact the cultural uniqueness of the Ouseburn area and its existing establishments. The design and height of the building is not consistent with the cultural or aesthetic elements of the area. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| This proposal would greatly impact the visual attractiveness of the area itself, greatly restrict the view across the river and of Newcastle and Gateshead quaysides. This would impact the cultural uniqueness of the Ouseburn area and its existing establishments. The design and height of the building is not consistent with the cultural or aesthetic elements of the area. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| This proposal would greatly impact the visual attractiveness of the area itself, greatly restrict the view across the river and of Newcastle and Gateshead quaysides. This would impact the cultural uniqueness of the Ouseburn area and its existing establishments. The design and height of the building is not consistent with the cultural or aesthetic elements of the area. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| This proposal would greatly impact the visual attractiveness of the area itself, greatly restrict the view across the river and of Newcastle and Gateshead quaysides. This would impact the cultural uniqueness of the Ouseburn area and its existing establishments. The design and height of the building is not consistent with the cultural or aesthetic elements of the area. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| This development is completely wrong for this area of the city and completely unsympathetic to the surrounding buildings. Furthermore traffic is already busy round the quayside and a block of flats such as this will encourage more cars and will result in worse congestion. I’m not against development in the city but this is the wrong development. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| I truly believe the construction of a tower will have a negative impact on several fronts. Firstly, it will impact local businesses. They have already worked exceptionally hard to stay open during the pandemic with the north receiving limited government support. The tower and development on that area will make roads to sites like the cycle hub, free trade and Tyne bar tighter, busier and harder to park at. I fear it will mean quayside traffic will worsen. This will put people off visiting these businesses. The cycle hub has already seen the introduction of parking fees on that site which is greatly disappointing to myself who often goes there. Secondly, I don’t think it would be fair on housing prices in the area. The council would be better supporting more private buildings to get the certification to sell and remortgage. An 18 level tower block will only add to the number of people trapped in expensive housing due to the requirement for EWS1 certificates and the likes. Similarly it will impact the views from other flats making them depreciate in value. Thirdly, the Tyne is perfect. I’m a regular at the market, the Ouseburn and its businesses for the outstanding views and feeling of space in an otherwise overcrowded city. The city centre is built up enough without loosing our stunning iconic quayside views. It’a a wonderful cycle route partially due to the hard work of the cycle hubs alongside the councils cycle scheme. It’s great for runners as a flat space with wide paths. It has incredible quirky businesses from microbreweries like brinkburn, local music support at the Tyne bar and the free trade that nearly nightly supports other businesses with food trucks. Please do not approve these developments. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| I am writing to register my objection to planning application reference 2021/2404/01/EIA the 'Malmo Quay' development for a number of reasons. The size, appearance, layout and density of the proposed development is totally incorrect for the area. We are living in a time where our open spaces are incredibly important to our mental health and this development will remove a perfect space to help the people of Newcastle and surrounding areas to improve their health and wellbeing. I draw your attention to the healthy happy spaces programme that is being created by our local NHS Integrated Care System, supported by our regional academic health science network and Timothy Crawshaw MA MRTPI FRSA (the Vice President of the Royal Town Planning Institute). More details her: https://ahsn-nenc.org.uk/what-we-do/improving-population-health/healthy… This area's development should be done in line with these principles to put the people of the city front and centre in any development in this area. Especially saying as this is ICS backed and the council is a key player in our ICS. The current development plans will reduce natural daylight, increase car pollution to an area of beauty, remove a place that could be developed to help the health of the population, increase noise and hugely increase the day-to-day amount of traffic coming to the area at a time when there are plans to introduce a clean air zone. Also, this city is in desperate need of affordable housing, the Malmö quay development will not offer the kind of housing this city needs. Any developments of this nature should be in an area that makes it affordable to the majority of residents of the city. Not to a rich few. Please reject this application, ensure that any development if this area supports this region health inequalities and suggest new housing developments are in areas of the city that benefit those that need it the most. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| Scale and massing, inappropriate development and impact on local amenity- this building is massive and does not fit with the local architecture, it will impact and change the local topography, sky line and impact enjoyment of the local listed buildings and heritage sites: Grade II Listed Ouseburn School Sailors Bethal Tyne Bar Public House Toffee Factory Glasshouse Bridge The Quayside and Ouseburn’s built environment is defined by distinctive buildings, many of which are historic, of different sizes and orientations. This building directly disrespects this environment. Daylight, sunlight and overshadowing A building of this size will have a huge impact in terms of blocking sunlight and casting a shadow including significant impact on existing businesses and residential properties including Free Trade Inn and Tyne Bar. Quality of Design The building is very ugly and does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. Highways, transport, parking, and air quality + traffic generation Consideration should be given to the impact of the development and the associated vehicles on the existing highways infrastructure, and the provision of parking for the development. Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. As a cyclist, there are very few cycle paths in this area and it does not always feel safe to bike. I would think this would only increase with more cars in the area with no public transport. Parking; The submitted plans for Malmo Quay appear to only show 18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block, woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route 72 which runs along the Quayside. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| I have owned a business in the Ouseburn since 2015. I write to object to the proposals for Malmo Quay. The scale and massing of this development will completely dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. It is wholly inappropriate in size and developers seem not to have considered the area in which they propose it to be built. Surrounding spaces, communities and businesses will find themselves in the shadow of this enormous 18 storey tower block which will dominate the skyline and views of the Tyne. The loss of light will be of great consequence to existing businesses who over the years have done much to create a vibrant, well-loved and unique part of the city. Local infrastructure will be strained by the development. Parking problems are already an issue for visitors, businesses and residents of the Ouseburn so proposing a mere 18 parking spaces for a tower of 62 apartments will definitely exacerbate the existing problem. The proposed tower does not sit comfortably within the area and appears to want to be a “Landmark” rather than complementing the industrial history of the Ouseburn. I understand that development has to happen however it should be appropriate development and should be in-keeping with the area, I feel the current proposals are not. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| RIDICULOUS. GREAT WAY TO RUIN THE TRENDIEST PART OF THE CITY!!! | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| I object strongly to this application. The plan itself raises a number of concerns relating to its height, the resultant quality of life for nearby residents and its impact on views, particularly those towards the Millennium bridge. I cannot support the loss of employment generating uses on land defined in the Local Plan. The proposed development is such a high rise developed, I am concerned that a block of this height and mass will be harmful to views. This is one of the regions most important, landmark views. I am not convinced that the Visual Impact Assessment adequately addresses these concerns. I am also concerned regarding the potential living environment which would result from this application. The preponderance of single aspect flats is also a concern. The provision of outdoor amenity space is very sparse for a development of so many dwellings. It is not clear what facilities will result from the development on-site and the site itself is not convenient for day-to-day shopping requirements and other services. The impact of this development on school places in the area also needs to be considered. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| Helen Ette, 9 Heaton Hall Road, NE6 5NQ Comment relating to my objection to the Malmo Quay development - planning application reference 2021/2404/01/EIA My main concern is related to the size and appearance of the proposed development. The built environment of Ouseburn and the Quayside is one of culture and history – its architecture is one of the main attractions of the area, and the reason it is such an attractive place to wander, drink, and explore. I am majorly concerned that the appearance of the proposed site is not appropriate to the existing built development and topography of the area. To look at, it doesn’t match the distinctive appearance of the surrounding area. Many buildings are historic and repurposed, they often have an industrial feel to them. The colours of the proposed developments don’t sympathise with what’s already there – they will be totally conspicuous and just look odd in comparison to its surroundings. The importance of architecture and built environment in the appeal of a city or local area cannot be understated – the same is true for Ouseburn. The appearance of the development just does the area no justice at all and will alter the enjoyment that so many find in it. This is made worse by the size of the proposed building. Its height and huge scale means not only is it not appropriate to its surroundings, it actively worsens the attraction of Ouseburn and the Quayside. There is no existing development in Ouseburn that is that large and it is entirely inappropriate to build something so out of character for the area, especially on such a scale. To make it even worse, it will also alter the siteline and existing enjoyment of local heritage assets such as The Tyne Bar, Toffee Factory, and Sailors Bethal. Ouseburn and the Quayside are sites of history – this development would destroy that. Moreover, a building of this size will block the sunlight and cast a shadow, and in turn impacting some of the thriving businesses already in the area, such as the Free Trade Inn and the Tyne Bar. Covid has destroyed so many local businesses, we shouldn’t be proposing developments which will hinder them even more. Issues such as daylight and shadows will have a major impact on these businesses, their appeal, and how they can run. Ouseburn is the best of Newcastle. Its culture, history, and sense of community is what makes it so great. These proposals seriously have the potential to destroy the feel of the area, and in turn its businesses, community, and culture. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| There is very strong evidence that Igloo have not made proper allowance for noise pollution from Tyne Bar and surrounding Ouseburn activities, and that asking the new residents to keep their windows closed isn't good enough. The new residents will make a complaint and an important live music venue will be lost. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| As a frequent user of the Tyne Bar and the Ouseburn area generally, I am concerned that no thought has been given to noise mitigation for the development. They Tyne bar is a well renowned live music venue and an integral part in the atmosphere of the Ouseburn. Complaints from the new residents WILL result and the council must act. This will be the end of the character of the Ouseburn as we know it. It is a unique part of the Newcastle music scene and must be preserved. In addition, I object to the tower as it is wholly inappropriate in that location. It is an absolute eyesore and should not be approved | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| The 18 story building does not fit in with the existing buildings. The local travel infrastructure, roads/buses is unable to support the number of new people who will occupy the new residences. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| As someone who lives very close to the propsed development, I am deeply concerned about the impact on this area. I am therefore placing an objection for several reasons. This area has very few public transport links. No busses pass the proposed sight, and metros are up a steep hill over 1km away. The area is not equipt for connecting such a huge influx of residents with the rest of Newcastle. This means that people will have to rely on cars. This will lead to more air pollution in the area, and impact on local habitat. I was shocked to see these plans only have 18 parking spaces for 62 apartments. As the area's parking infrastructure already lacks for current residents, where are the new residents expected to park? The Ouseburn and quayside are beautiful areas, attracting a lot of tourism and visitors. The repurposed buildings give a nod to the area's industrial past. The proposed building is completely out of keeping with this historic area. Firstly the size will make it the biggest building on the quayside by some margin, so it will completely dominate the skyline and is ridiculously out of keeping with the area. Secondly, the proposed design is quite frankly a monstrosity. Do we really want a 18 story ugly beige tower block to be the main focal point of the Quayside and Ouseburn? The detrimental impact this would have on an area, which is currently a huge asset to Newcastle, is frightening. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| As a frequent visitor to the ouseburn area in order to visit my son who lives in ouseburn wharf and to enjoy the restaurants, shops and artists and ambience of the area I object to this planning application for the following reasons: * the building of an 18 storey high rise is a monstrosity not in keeping with the area and it will overshadow the existing buildings. * the proposal will overshadow existing historical buildings namely the Sailors Bethal, Tyne Tees Shipping Company (hotel du vin) Toffee factory , glass house bridge and Albion Row school diminishing their historical importance in the area. * the provision for parking in the area is already limited and will be a strain on local on street parking. * accessibility by public transport is limited. * the green area which is the proposed site is a welcome place in the already developed ouseburn. * the design is not in keeping with the existing buildings. * the proposal is a threat to the character of the ouseburn. The ouseburn has already been significantly developed and there are no green spaces for residents to relax and enjoy the beauty of the area particularly at the mouth of the ouseburn as it enters the Tyne where many locals walk to take in the scenery. This is also an area which is welcoming many tourists to the area to take in the vibrant and eclectic atmosphere and experience the unique heritage and history it offers. I feel this area should be further developed as a green recreational space. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| If this his planned development proceeds then it will be an eyesore and destroy the culture of our city. The view up the Tyne is without doubt one of the most impressive urban views and something our city is proud of. My Dad first took me to look out at the view from the Free Trade pub when I was a child, he said this will be one of the greatest views you will ever see, he was right. I lived away from the north east for 14 years and I used to long for that view, it was that view that eventually bought me home to Newcastle to live again. I know my sentiment and connection to this view is shared my many. Whenever people come up to visit I will take them to the Free Trade to have a pint and enjoy the incredible view. So many beautiful views are destroyed because of developers greed, please do not let this be one of them, please instead protect it! | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| If this his planned development proceeds then it will be an eyesore and destroy the culture of our city. The view up the Tyne is without doubt one of the most impressive urban views and something our city is proud of. My Dad first took me to look out at the view from the Free Trade pub when I was a child, he said this will be one of the greatest views you will ever see, he was right. I lived away from the north east for 14 years and I used to long for that view, it was that view that eventually bought me home to Newcastle to live again. I know my sentiment and connection to this view is shared my many. Whenever people come up to visit I will take them to the Free Trade to have a pint and enjoy the incredible view. So many beautiful views are destroyed because of developers greed, please do not let this be one of them, please instead protect it! | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| I would like to register my objection to the proposed Malmo Quay development in the Ouseburn area of Newcastle, and in particular the 18 storey tower block, which I feel as totally out of proportion to the surrounding area. The design and height of this high rise building stands out and has a detrimental impact in the landscape. The Ouseburn area is a creative and dynamic area of the city and the residents of the development will be affected by the noise and disturbance in this area. I also believe the number of residential units proposed for the Malmo Quay will not be served adequately through the proposed provision of car parking on the Malmo Quay development. In summary I would urge you to protect this precious sector of the city from this Poorly thought out development at Malmo Quay and protect the Ouseburn area by rejecting this application. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| I would like to register my objection to the proposed Malmo Quay development in the Ouseburn area of Newcastle, and in particular the 18 storey tower block, which I feel as totally out of proportion to the surrounding area. The design and height of this high rise building stands out and has a detrimental impact in the landscape. The Ouseburn area is a creative and dynamic area of the city and the residents of the development will be affected by the noise and disturbance in this area. I also believe the number of residential units proposed for the Malmo Quay will not be served adequately through the proposed provision of car parking on the Malmo Quay development. In summary I would urge you to protect this precious sector of the city from this Poorly thought out development at Malmo Quay and protect the Ouseburn area by rejecting this application. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| Considerations have not been given to existing music venues. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| Considerations have not been given to existing music venues. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| Considerations have not been given to existing music venues. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| I believe that the scale of the 18-storey tower is totally out of character and is disproportionate for the local area. It is quite ugly and dominates the surroundings, dwarfing other buildings all the way along the Quayside. It contradicts the principles of the Tyne Gorge study and Tall Buildings Policy for this area. There is insufficient car parking. 77 homes are being proposed in total with only 24 car parking spaces, (a ratio of 31%). This will force residents to park on surrounding streets. The area is not well served by public transport I am not convinced that there will be sufficient local school places for the resident children – therefore meaning that parents will need a car to get the children to a more distant school It is difficult to judge the Malmo site in isolation to the Spiller’s Quay proposals which are coming at a later point. The two sites are very much linked due to density and car parking. There is real strength of community feeling against the development from all surrounding buildings occupants. I certainly request that the current proposals will not be pushed through without due consideration to all the concerns raised | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| Strongly object to the 18 storey building, it ruins the iconic skyline along the quayside. Not just for residents near to Ouseburn, this tower block will be visible from most points along the quayside. I truly believe tower blocks need to remain in the city centre only, allowing for smaller community housing on the outskirts. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| The proposed tower is a continuation of the themes of previous proposals for the site - it is too tall in proportion to the surrounding buildings both in it's development and those that already exist on the quayside. Because it is out of proportion it will noticeably impact views along the quayside both from town and and from the Walker end. Furthermore if this proposal is granted there is a danger that further developments of a similar or greater height will granted permission because of the precedent this tower would set, further degrading a historic and important area visually and aesthetically. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| Understand that this site needs development and understand the inclusion of lower buildings which are appropriate. However I strongly object to the inclusion of the tall tower. It is entirely out of keeping with the buildings it will be surrounded by both in terms of height and of the design. This beige block will age terribly, and just become another eyesore that gets knocked down in 50 years time. There is also clearly an impact on the general landscape of the quayside. It is not in fitting with the other buildings. Not enough parking factored in to these plans, there will be many flats in this tower and surrounding it, and some households will have more than one car. We are already very concerned about the impact of the Whey Aye wheel development on traffic congestion and overcrowding of public transport. We are particularly concerned about the potential for a significant increase in the number of visitors to the area parking in the limited spaces around our currently quiet neighbourhood, due to wholly inadequate parking provision for the new tourist attraction. This development will further compound the problem by developing part of the existing free car park on Spillers Quay and increasing demand for parking with the addition of a significant number of new residential dwellings The ouseburn is a unique place, regularly voted in the world’s top neighbourhoods, and the unique mix of independent businesses and culture are at risk. For every new development, (overdevelopment) it encroaches on this unique area, and shrinks it. Although not grounds alone for objecting, but in addition to the above there will also be a loss of views from the Free Trade Inn and a lot of the buildings on Ouseburn wharf. Decreasing the values and enjoyment of the properties. The proposed buildings in spillers car park area are vague in description. They will block daylight and create shadows on the buildings behind. Is there also a flood risk replacing one of the only green parts up this end of the quayside with concrete buildings? | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| While I am supportive of the area being developed, it is paramount that any building is not to the detriment of the vibrant Ouseburn area already established. An independent review from the Environmental Acoustics Practice has highlighted concerns that the development is not suited for the location due to nearby live music venues and the certainty of noise complaints. The prospect of future restrictions being placed on established venues, or of diminishing the vibrancy of the Ouseburn area as a whole is too great a risk. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| I would like to object to proposal 2021/2404/01/EIA. I feel that a development of this size and design in an area of significant character is completely out of character with its surroundings. It detracts from the existing buildings, premises and businesses including a number of listed buildings. It will dwarf its neighbours causing significant effects on daylight and natural light available. The proposed residencies will cause huge transport and infrastructure problems for the area including significant increase in traffic, pollution, parking requirements and congestion. The design of the building is incongruous to its surroundings and is in no way sympathetic to the existing architecture of the Ouseburn. The Malmo structure would be an unwelcome and unnecessary addition to the area. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| I would like to voice my objection regarding the development at Malmo Quay. As a resident living on Maling Street in close proximity to the new development, the proposed design — particularly the tower block — would have a serious impact on my day-to-day life, particularly in terms of: • Loss of light • Overshadowing • Loss of privacy • Disruption to community activity in the allotments and communal social space caused by the above • Traffic congestion caused by inadequate access routes • Interference with parking availability All of the above could have a severe impact on my mental health and enjoyment of my property and neighbourhood, and that of my neighbours, too. Additionally, the size and scale are totally incongruous with the Ouseburn’s unique character and will have an extremely detrimental impact on local landmarks and businesses, like the Free Trade Inn. I find the proposal does not adequately assess the impact on residents living in the Malings and adjacent developments like Lower Steenbergs Yard in any meaningful or helpful way, which is not acceptable. I have outlined the specifics of my objection below. Loss of light The proposal does not explore the potential loss of light and impact of overshadowing for the Malings residential area directly behind the tower block. This is unacceptable. While it is hard to say exactly where light would be lost (as no assessment is offered) it could potentially cause residents to suffer a significant loss of sunlight in their private gardens and dwellings at certain times of the year. This would have a serious mental health impact. Additionally, community activity in the allotments — which are well-used and loved — could be made unusable due to loss of light. Our shared public communal space in the centre of the development, which plays host to several community events throughout the year, could be significantly disrupted. No assessment of this impact is offered in the proposal. Loss of privacy The Malings and the Lower Steenbergs Yard developments will suffer a significant loss privacy, with the proposed tower featuring many dwellings with large windows looking directly over our homes and outside spaces. As our homes have been designed in a way that sensitively maximises privacy on our estate, and the only existing overlooking is from a commercial property only occupied in working hours, this would be a very dramatic change. Again, no assessment of this impact is included in the proposal. Traffic and parking The proposal admits that there will be a severe, deliberate underprovision of parking spaces. This will inevitably put unsustainable pressure on local roads and on street parking. As a Malings Street resident I pay for a Council parking permit, but may struggle to park owing to severe competition for spaces on Ford Street, Maling Street, and behind the development. There are simply not enough spaces and the developers assertion that people will simply not use cars is not adequately supported by evidence to back this up. One local bus route does not enable family households to be able to live without cars. Congestion and excess parking have also caused disruption to our waste collection services in the past when cars parked outside the permit zone block access to bin stores, leading to unhygienic conditions. It is reasonable to imagine that putting even more pressure on parking would cause further disruption to waste collections. Impact on the skyline, viewpoints, and local landmarks While loss of view is not normally a consideration in a planning application, the impact on the Free Trade Inn and loss of clear sightline towards the exceptional Tyne Bridge extends beyond a loss of view and is instead a devastating loss of a beloved cultural institution and landmark, one toasted in the press and a major attraction for tourists and visitors to the area. To dismiss the impact on this landmark and popular institution as an irrelevant ‘loss of view’ diminishes its true significance to the Ouseburn’s unique local character. The developers propose that the tower would become a new landmark. According to the mock-up viewpoints in the proposal, the tower would dominate every viewpoint in the local area, dwarfing many of the existing local landmarks and points of interest. Size alone does not constitute a landmark. There is little of interest in the design that would contribute to the local scenery beyond its incongruous height. The character and significance of the Ouseburn The Ouseburn area possesses a unique character and heritage, with a distinct blend of industrial buildings, cultural venues, and historical features. The uniqueness is demonstrated in the frequent local heritage tours and groups of architectural enthusiasts and students that visit the area. The area often appears in print and online features, like the Guardian and TimeOut, with a particular emphasis on its unique character, culture, and nightlife. The proposed development is totally at odds with this. Nothing about the design or appearance of the new development, particularly the tower block, has any links to the heritage or background of Ouseburn, and the size, scale and appearance are totally at odds with the surrounding landscape and existing architecture. The proposal would appear to downplay the area’s cultural importance, historical significance and unique character — as outlined above — in order to justify the scale and style of the development. This is unacceptable. When compared to other, more sympathetic modern developments, such as the Toffee Factory, or housing developments like the Malings — designed to be a living community that meshes with the existing scenery — it is clear how little how been done to try and integrate the design with the Ouseburn environment. It is so out of scale with every other building, that it appears the only factor in deciding the height and size was financial viability. This does demonstrate any kind of “balancing act”, to quote the proposal, between the needs of the area and the needs of the developer. Each day as I walk along the canal as the sun is setting over the Toffee Factory — right where the proposed tower would stand, blocking the daylight — I feel anxious and worried about the development and its impact on my home and neighbourhood. I urge the planning committee to reject this application. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| I would like to voice my objection regarding the development at Malmo Quay. As a resident living on Maling Street in close proximity to the new development, the proposed design — particularly the tower block — would have a serious impact on my day-to-day life, particularly in terms of: • Loss of light • Overshadowing • Loss of privacy • Disruption to community activity in the allotments and communal social space caused by the above • Traffic congestion caused by inadequate access routes • Interference with parking availability All of the above could have a severe impact on my mental health and enjoyment of my property and neighbourhood, and that of my neighbours, too. Additionally, the size and scale are totally incongruous with the Ouseburn’s unique character and will have an extremely detrimental impact on local landmarks and businesses, like the Free Trade Inn. I find the proposal does not adequately assess the impact on residents living in the Malings and adjacent developments like Lower Steenbergs Yard in any meaningful or helpful way, which is not acceptable. I have outlined the specifics of my objection below. Loss of light The proposal does not explore the potential loss of light and impact of overshadowing for the Malings residential area directly behind the tower block. This is unacceptable. While it is hard to say exactly where light would be lost (as no assessment is offered) it could potentially cause residents to suffer a significant loss of sunlight in their private gardens and dwellings at certain times of the year. This would have a serious mental health impact. Additionally, community activity in the allotments — which are well-used and loved — could be made unusable due to loss of light. Our shared public communal space in the centre of the development, which plays host to several community events throughout the year, could be significantly disrupted. No assessment of this impact is offered in the proposal. Loss of privacy The Malings and the Lower Steenbergs Yard developments will suffer a significant loss privacy, with the proposed tower featuring many dwellings with large windows looking directly over our homes and outside spaces. As our homes have been designed in a way that sensitively maximises privacy on our estate, and the only existing overlooking is from a commercial property only occupied in working hours, this would be a very dramatic change. Again, no assessment of this impact is included in the proposal. Traffic and parking The proposal admits that there will be a severe, deliberate underprovision of parking spaces. This will inevitably put unsustainable pressure on local roads and on street parking. As a Malings Street resident I pay for a Council parking permit, but may struggle to park owing to severe competition for spaces on Ford Street, Maling Street, and behind the development. There are simply not enough spaces and the developers assertion that people will simply not use cars is not adequately supported by evidence to back this up. One local bus route does not enable family households to be able to live without cars. Congestion and excess parking have also caused disruption to our waste collection services in the past when cars parked outside the permit zone block access to bin stores, leading to unhygienic conditions. It is reasonable to imagine that putting even more pressure on parking would cause further disruption to waste collections. Impact on the skyline, viewpoints, and local landmarks While loss of view is not normally a consideration in a planning application, the impact on the Free Trade Inn and loss of clear sightline towards the exceptional Tyne Bridge extends beyond a loss of view and is instead a devastating loss of a beloved cultural institution and landmark, one toasted in the press and a major attraction for tourists and visitors to the area. To dismiss the impact on this landmark and popular institution as an irrelevant ‘loss of view’ diminishes its true significance to the Ouseburn’s unique local character. The developers propose that the tower would become a new landmark. According to the mock-up viewpoints in the proposal, the tower would dominate every viewpoint in the local area, dwarfing many of the existing local landmarks and points of interest. Size alone does not constitute a landmark. There is little of interest in the design that would contribute to the local scenery beyond its incongruous height. The character and significance of the Ouseburn The Ouseburn area possesses a unique character and heritage, with a distinct blend of industrial buildings, cultural venues, and historical features. The uniqueness is demonstrated in the frequent local heritage tours and groups of architectural enthusiasts and students that visit the area. The area often appears in print and online features, like the Guardian and TimeOut, with a particular emphasis on its unique character, culture, and nightlife. The proposed development is totally at odds with this. Nothing about the design or appearance of the new development, particularly the tower block, has any links to the heritage or background of Ouseburn, and the size, scale and appearance are totally at odds with the surrounding landscape and existing architecture. The proposal would appear to downplay the area’s cultural importance, historical significance and unique character — as outlined above — in order to justify the scale and style of the development. This is unacceptable. When compared to other, more sympathetic modern developments, such as the Toffee Factory, or housing developments like the Malings — designed to be a living community that meshes with the existing scenery — it is clear how little how been done to try and integrate the design with the Ouseburn environment. It is so out of scale with every other building, that it appears the only factor in deciding the height and size was financial viability. This does demonstrate any kind of “balancing act”, to quote the proposal, between the needs of the area and the needs of the developer. Each day as I walk along the canal as the sun is setting over the Toffee Factory — right where the proposed tower would stand, blocking the daylight — I feel anxious and worried about the development and its impact on my home and neighbourhood. I urge the planning committee to reject this application. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| I would like to voice my objection regarding the development at Malmo Quay. As a resident living on Maling Street in close proximity to the new development, the proposed design — particularly the tower block — would have a serious impact on my day-to-day life, particularly in terms of: • Loss of light • Overshadowing • Loss of privacy • Disruption to community activity in the allotments and communal social space caused by the above • Traffic congestion caused by inadequate access routes • Interference with parking availability All of the above could have a severe impact on my mental health and enjoyment of my property and neighbourhood, and that of my neighbours, too. Additionally, the size and scale are totally incongruous with the Ouseburn’s unique character and will have an extremely detrimental impact on local landmarks and businesses, like the Free Trade Inn. I find the proposal does not adequately assess the impact on residents living in the Malings in any meaningful or helpful way, which is not acceptable. I have outlined the specifics of my objection below. Loss of light The proposal does not explore the potential loss of light and impact of overshadowing for the Malings residential area directly behind the tower block. This is unacceptable. While it is hard to say exactly where light would be lost (as no assessment is offered) it could potentially cause residents to suffer a significant loss of sunlight in their private gardens and dwellings at certain times of the year. This would have a serious mental health impact. Additionally, community activity in the allotments — which are well-used and loved — could be made unusable due to loss of light. Our shared public ‘town square’, which plays host to several community events throughout the year, could be significantly disrupted. No assessment of this impact is offered in the proposal. Loss of privacy The Malings and the Lower Steenbergs Yard developments will suffer a significant loss privacy, with the proposed tower featuring many dwellings with large windows looking directly over our homes and outside spaces. As our homes have been designed in a way that sensitively maximises privacy on our estate, and the only existing overlooking is from a commercial property, this would be a very dramatic change. Again, no assessment of this impact is included in the proposal. Traffic and parking The proposal admits that there will be a severe, deliberate underprovision of parking spaces. This will inevitably put unsustainable pressure on local roads an onstreet parking. As a Malings Street resident I pay for a Council parking permit, but may struggle to park owing to severe competition for spaces on Ford Street, Maling Street, and behind the development. There are simply not enough spaces and the developers assertion that people will simply not use cars is not adequately supported by evidence to back this up. One local bus route does not enable family households to be able to live without cars. Congestion and excess parking have also caused disruption to our waste collection services in the past when cars parked outside the permit zone block access to bin stores, leading to unhygienic conditions. It is reasonable to imagine that putting even more pressure on parking would cause further disruption to waste collections. Impact on the skyline, viewpoints, and local landmarks While loss of view is not normally a consideration in a planning application, the impact on the Free Trade Inn and loss of clear sightline towards the exceptional Tyne Bridge extends beyond a loss of view and is instead a devastating loss of a beloved cultural institution and landmark, one toasted in the press and a major attraction for tourists and visitors to the area. To dismiss the impact on this landmark and popular institution as an irrelevant ‘loss of view’ diminishes its true significance to the Ouseburn’s unique local character. The developers propose that the tower would become a new landmark. According to the mock-up viewpoints in the proposal, the tower would dominate every viewpoint in the local area, dwarfing many of the existing local landmarks and points of interest. Size alone does not constitute a landmark. There is little of interest in the design that would contribute to the local scenery beyond its incongruous height. The character and significance of the Ouseburn The Ouseburn area possesses a unique character and heritage, with a distinct blend of industrial buildings, cultural venues, and historical features. The uniqueness is demonstrated in the frequent local heritage tours and groups of architectural enthusiasts and students that visit the area. The area often appears in print and online features, like the Guardian and TimeOut, with a particular emphasis on its unique character, culture, and nightlife. The proposed development is totally at odds with this. Nothing about the design or appearance of the new development, particularly the tower block, has any links to the heritage or background of Ouseburn, and the size, scale and appearance are totally at odds with the surrounding landscape and existing architecture. The proposal would appear to downplay the area’s cultural importance, historical significance and unique character — as outlined above — in order to justify the scale and style of the development. This is unacceptable. When compared to other, more sympathetic modern developments, such as the Toffee Factory, or housing developments like the Malings — designed to be a living community that meshes with the existing scenery — it is clear how little how been done to try and integrate the design with the Ouseburn environment. It is so out of scale with every other building, that it appears the only factor in deciding the height and size was financial viability. This does demonstrate any kind of “balancing act”, to quote the proposal, between the needs of the area and the needs of the developer. Each day as I walk along the canal side and look over past the Toffee Factory — where the proposed tower would stand — I feel anxious and worried about the development and its impact on my home and neighbourhood. I urge the planning committee to reject this application. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| My family and I live in Ouseburn and strongly object to this development. The high tower block will ruin the city vistas (including most notably the legendary view from the Free Trade Inn) and will undoubtably dismantle the special, fragile community into which the Ouseburn has evolved over the last 30 years. In addition, the scheme offers no provision for affordable housing. As it stands, the block would make no positive contribution whatever to the area. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| The Ouseburn has such great character and community. Yes, there is recent and ongoing gentrification of the area, but I fear that this enormous tower block would completely overwhelm and impose. We must draw a line at some point over which we do not step otherwise we will lose the fantastic nature of the community here. The iconic view of the Tyne from many vantage points in the area will be damaged by such a tall building. Yes, the new residents of the tower block would have unbelievable views, but why should the current inhabitants of the Byker, Ouseburn, and Quayside suffer by having this huge, imposing pillar loom over them? Many people, myself included, find that the openness of the quayside and Ouseburn area is a vital tonic to their lives. Such beautiful and interesting views of the river and surrounding buildings and industry are found all over the community. It’s extremely depressing to imagine how much of them would be hidden and lost by the tower block which couldn’t possibly be in a more insensitive location for the area. Please consider how massive an impact the design of this huge tower would have on the people of the area, and how much would be lost forever. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| I strongly object to the application. The proposed new buildings, particularly the tower block absolutely do not fit in with the style or ethos of the quayside area. The tower block looks like a vegetable rack, is completely out of character, is an eyesore, and will overshadow and block the view from one of Tyneside's most loved and venerable traditional pubs, The Free Trade Inn. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| I wish to strongly object to this proposal. It is in no way keeping with the surrounding area. The landscape of this area of town will be changed for the worse, forever. Some of the best views of our city will be severely compromised by the building of this tower block. The design of the building itself is awful, it will look so out of place. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| This development is totally out of scale for the site in particular and the Tyne gorge in general . One of the treasures of Newcastle is the sweep of the river and this will impinge like a sore thumb from many viewpoints , not just the Free Trade . The height of the existing buildings at that end of the Quayside should be the benchmark with buildings following the line of the valley and the Quay in front ideal for a new public space forming an entry into the Ouseburn valley . Access and parking is already a problem in the area and this plan will add to that and be a permanent blight on areas behind and downstream , do we want generations to come asking why we allowed one of the jewels in our crown to be ruined by greedy developers . | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| This development is totally out of scale for the site in particular and the Tyne gorge in general . One of the treasures of Newcastle is the sweep of the river and this will impinge like a sore thumb from many viewpoints , not just the Free Trade . The height of the existing buildings at that end of the Quayside should be the benchmark with buildings following the line of the valley and the Quay in front ideal for a new public space forming an entry into the Ouseburn valley . Access and parking is already a problem in the area and this plan will add to that and be a permanent blight on areas behind and downstream , do we want generations to come asking why we allowed one of the jewels in our crown to be ruined by greedy developers . | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| I think the erection of such a tower would have devastating ramifications for the local businesses and community. To me the tower is too big for the area and would be off putting to tourists visiting. Tourists who wouldn't know what lies beyond the tower in the Ouseburn, as the height, size and placement acts as a blockade to the businesses beyond the Malmo site. This would impact revenue and atmosphere in much loved venues in the Ouseburn like; The Tyne Bar, Free Trade, Kiln, Brinkburn Brewery, Cumberland Arms, Northern Rye, Di Meo's, Hoults Yard, Cluny, Ship Inn & Ouseburn Markets to name a few potentially impacting local businesses if the development was to go ahead. I worry about an increase in noise complaints about the local pubs and music venues from the residents who are new to the area. I think that the impact this development would have would be slow but long-lasting, forever changing the vitality and nature of the Ouseburn, where creatives and independents would be pushed out of the very area they forged. The size of the tower seems wholly inappropriate for the area, overshadowing and blocking sunlight not just in the surrounding area but up and down the Quayside, even compared with the tops of buildings up the hill. Not to mention car parking issues if all 62 proposed residents were to own a car. I know that there is a car park due to be built where the Cycle Hub now stands, but it's planned to be finalised 'at a later date' and not on completion with the Malmo homes. I am all for the Malmo land being used for development but something which has a height limit and something which serves the creative community with which it surrounds would be a much better use of the space. Something akin to Byker Farm, a park or more units for small businesses like in the Malings over the road. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| The proposal is not keeping in the size and scale of the region, it will have permanent negative effect in the heritage of the area and the community. The 18 floors building does not fit in the small plot of land, generating traffic that the infrastructure would not be able to support, and there is no space to extend the infrastructure (road, parking, bus route, metro, etc.). The lower development is also not considering livable space. The proposal is also not commercially viable, too expensive for students although it is built more like a student dorm, not enough space for a family, it will just be another block of development left empty. As for spiller quay, the Hub is a historic building with significant contribution to the community. This is on the Hadrian walk path and bike path, the development will remove access for public access, removing the Hub bike shop would remove a bike stop, various charity walk in the area, community who use this space, and destroying an award winning building design by a local architect. The development is not consistent with the sustainability target that the council is set to achieve. The develop would only further deteriorate the area rather than attracting people to come enjoy/live in the space, it's just not what the Ouseburn valley is about, it is a contradiction from culture aspect, environment, life style, community, commercial viability, and sustainability. We will end up having a dialect building and an eyesore forever in the area invading the existing vibrant neighborhood of Ouseburn as we know it today. The developer should go back to the drawing board and design a community that fit the vibe of the area and address all aspects mentioned here. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| The tower block is not in keeping with the buildings in the local vicinity. There is a mix of styles of low rise properties which the proposed tower would overshadow and dwarf becoming an unsightly focus on the north bank of the Tyne detracting for the many listed buildings in the area. The views from the opposite bank (ie south side of the Tyne) would be blighted by the dominance of the tower on the horizon. I am concerned by the limited number of parking spaces allocated to the site and, especially, to electric vehicles. The developers propose “to provide an under provision of parking on an unallocated basis”. This is to be potentially increased by discussions with NCC to provide a small provision of on-street parking. This will have a major impact on the local area as parking is already limited. With respect to electric charging, all new cars from 2030 will be battery electric vehicles (bev) and, to keep reasonably charged, will require overnight charging facilities. Many bevs require between 9 and 14 hours from a standard 13amp supply and only slightly less for a 7kw supply. It is not feasible to just have a charge point at a parking space on an unallocated basis - who pays; how does it get paid; will it be a cheap tarriff; how secure will the points be? As these spaces are unallocated it cannot be guranteed that bev owners/users will be able to access them when they need. For those using public transport, the walk to a bus stop is all uphill as the Q3 runs along City Road which is on the viaduct above the site approximately level with the 9th floor of the tower. Is this reasonable? | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| This development does not fit in with the surrounding area, including historic and repurposed industrial buildings such as Ouseburn school, sailors bethel, toffee factory,tyne bar etc...it will alter the sightline of these buildings and is inappropriate and quite frankly will stand out like an unsightly sore thumb. In addition there does not appear to be enough parking for tower block so that will impact on residents of the surrounding streets, as tower block residents will need to park somewhere. This tower does not fit in with the Ouseburn and l strongly object to the planning application. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| I am writing to object to the proposals at Malmo and Spillers Quay. I am a resident of the Oval in Walker and, through my locally based company, I work for a number of businesses in the Ouseburn. My wife also has a florist’s shop in the Ouseburn, and I am a published historian on Newcastle’s history, including the Ouseburn, so I have many different connections with the area. The Ouseburn has been subject to heavy development in the last few years and I feel it important for context that, on the whole, the developments have been beneficial to the area. I also appreciate, not least from the history of the area, that places change over time and there is no such thing as a permanently fixed identity. With this in mind, I approached the Malmo and Spillers designs with an open mind and attended the public discussion around the plans, hosted by the Ouseburn Trust, a meeting which I was surprised to find that the developers and key partners did not attend. Having reviewed the plans and heard cases from both sides I am wanting to place an objection to the plans for the following reasons. Size, Appearance and Heritage: The Ouseburn has a long and cherished industrial history and the key to its successful regeneration has been a sympathetic approach to the buildings currently in existence and also a willingness by developers to recognise and embrace that. In the Malmo Quay proposals, I see very little attempt to do this, the tower block itself being a prime example. In its current proposed size, it dwarves the surrounding buildings, overshadowing numerous buildings and also dramatically diminishes the perspectives of the river from both ground level and up on the Glasshouse Bridge. It would cause a dramatic loss of light to the surrounding area and businesses and imposes itself on the site rather than sitting comfortably within its environment. In essence it doesn’t appear to be attempting to fit in, but instead stand out as a ‘landmark’ building. Whilst this might be appropriate for an area with no existing draw, the Ouseburn is a thriving area which attracts tourists, residents and businesses exactly because of how it already is. So, to then dramatically change that with a new ‘landmark’ building, that in no way nods to the existing area, seems tone deaf to the Ouseburn’s existing appeal and success. Parking Provision: For businesses and visitors in the Ouseburn parking provision is already limited. Owing to the scale of recent developments it is well known that Spillers Quay has become an unofficial overflow car park for many people coming into the area, as there is little space currently available to park. This is particularly tricky for local businesses. The dramatic increase in numbers of residents that would come with the proposed development, given the very limited and unbinding commitment to parking spaces, will only make this problem more acute. There are numerous residential roads on the outskirts of the Ouseburn that are now already used as unofficial car parks (not least the roads around St. Lawrence’s Park). The proposals for new spaces in this application, given the numbers of residents present if it is at capacity, seems very small and will surely only exacerbate an already big problem. Cycling Provision: I am a frequent cyclist for work and leisure and use cycle route 72 on a near daily basis. With the proposal for the Whey Aye wheel already in progress and the proposals at Spillers and Malmo Development now being put forward, I cannot see how this major part of the route will not be affected by the years of building work, access required and road closures necessary. As part of the council’s efforts towards sustainability, the cycle lanes are essential to making the city a greener place to live and work and major disruption to this route would dramatically affect them. Not to mention that they are also a big reason for tourism into the region and whilst I appreciate loss of view is not a consideration at planning level, it is worth noting that when approaching Newcastle from Walker on route 72, the proposed development is the first point at which the river opens up to cyclists and presents a dramatic and arresting view – something that will be entirely lost in the new proposals. Policing: As a local resident the river pathways and cycle paths, particularly at night, are often some of the places where crime and anti-social behaviour happens most frequently. Poor lighting provision and the inability of the police to access the paths, means they are frequently used by criminals. As residents of the Oval we have personal experience, and know of numerous neighbours, who have had frequent theft attempts of cars and goods from sheds, all of which are facilitated by people or groups that then use the side paths to the cycle ways to escape – often on high powered bikes. Also there have been numerous instances of high-powered bikes and other abandoned vehicles that have been set fire to on the path and destroyed, posing a great risk to the surrounding natural habitat. Given this, I am particularly concerned to see that Northumbria Police’s Harm Reduction and Communities Team’s report (posted on the planning portal) that states they have ‘significant concerns’ regarding this development and that their overall risk rating for it is “High”. Ecological Habitat: Where we live backs on to the river and overlooks the cycle routes, as such we are backed only by trees and as a result are aware of the very varied and amazing birds that make the Ouseburn and the riverside paths and trees their habitats of choice. Having undertaken the RSPB’s Big Garden Bird Watch this year, our figures were above the average expected for the region (including woodpeckers, blue jays and long tailed tits). The river is a life source for many of these species and the continued development along it of large, obtrusive structures with little if any provision for green spaces runs completely counter to their needs and the council’s proposed objectives to move towards a dramatically greener and more ecologically sound city. Thank you for taking the time to consider my objections. Patrick Low. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| This is a world class site with an Industrial Revolution heritage of international importance. If there has to be building here, it needs to be a world class design that will enhance the location for decades to come. I would suggest this proposal conflicts with scale references in Ouseburn Planning policy, heritage and conservation guidelines, and despite some concessions to sightlines, it undermines rather than enhances the views of landmark historic buildings, bridges and the riverscape as a whole. It's a shoddy bit of design, obviously done to a price, rather than to enhance the public realm, as the developers laughingly claim. The hybrid application is an obvious Trojan Horse to smuggle in god knows what in the second phase. And the proposal where we do have some detail is absolutely out of keeping with the needs of the area, the community, and existing local business. Also, the important Tyne Gorge study does not appear to have been taken into account AT ALL. I've got concerns about a host of other things that I'm sure will be covered in other objections, so I won't go into detail, but: Cycle hub demolition - removes an interesting building without proper provision for the many various uses and businesses it hosts. Transport - lack of public transport, distance of Metro stations, inadequate off street parking provision. Ground works - potential to disrupt toxic sediment (see recent news about marine deaths after excavations in Teeside for the Free Port). Lack of proper consultation - lip service has been given to public/community consultation, but none of the points raised seem to have influenced this application. It's not just about the tower - the housing proposals are dull. Igloo can do better, you only need to look at the Malings and Lower Steenbergs. Overall, I'm surprised the developers have had the nerve to submit this half baked proposal! | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| The development out of scale and character in the area it is planned The tower block does not respect the size and scale of building on the Newcastle side of the river and would be totally out of character for the area. As a result the block contravenes planning policy in that it doesn't respect the scale, plot sizes or topography of the surrounding are; nor does it enhance the character of the area. A further 73 homes would bring many more vehicles into an area where many people walk and cycle | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| This development is an eyesore, Ouseburn is an iconic area & has some very long established businesses that could be majorly effected by this development & subsequently have a knock on effect for other businesses. The views would be ruined, there is a potential for live music to become a noise issue & the character features that The Ouseburn is renowned for would be destroyed, effecting businesses, Artists & the local tourist trade. Residents that currently live in The Ouseburn have bought or rent their properties in this location for a reason, one being the vibrancey of the area, which this development could potentially ruin. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| This development is an eyesore, Ouseburn is an iconic area & has some very long established businesses that could be majorly effected by this development & subsequently have a knock on effect for other businesses. The views would be ruined, there is a potential for live music to become a noise issue & the character features that The Ouseburn is renowned for would be destroyed, effecting businesses, Artists & the local tourist trade. Residents that currently live in The Ouseburn have bought or rent their properties in this location for a reason, one being the vibrancey of the area, which this development could potentially ruin. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| The current proposal shows complete disregard of the local residents and businesses in the Ouseburn. The height of the development and the number of flats proposed does not compliment the regenerated parts of the Ouseburn and does not fit with the surrounding area in terms of mass and scale. The nearby Tyne Bar and Free Trade public houses contribute to Newcastle's arts and culture sectors, with live music at the Tyne Bar. The importance of such venues to the economy, culture and identity of our city has been demonstrated. The location of this proposed development would significantly impact their operations as venues and theaten their historical contribution. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| Completely inadequate parking for a block that size, when parking is already an issue in the area. The sense of scale does not blend with the area at all or enhance the historical character of the Ouseburn | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| I wish to object to this proposed development of the Malmo Quay. I think the scale of the 18-storey residential block is totally out of character with the existing Ouseburn valley infrastructure. It seems the only reason Igloo have included it is to make the whole proposal financially viable. I see no benefits to local people. The majority of the residential apartments will be bought by rich people living outside the area and sub-let as rentals. I doubt there will be many affordable apartments available for local people to buy. The design of the proposed buildings are not in keeping with the mix of buildings along the Ouseburn valley. The impact on existing local businesses will be huge and the development would adversely affect their viability. I fail to see how this development would enhance the area. Parking will be an issue to existing and residents on the proposal as it is pretty bad now without having tom accommodate more. The development will block the famous view along the river from the Free Trade Pub and also impact the Tyne Bar which is a popular venue for live music. Fairly recent residential developments have impacted the ability for the Tyne Bar to provide live music under the road arch. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| I would like to take this opportunity to express my objection in the strongest possible terms to the proposed development at Malmo Quay. I am deeply concerned that the proposed magnitude of the development means that it is completely asynchronous with the surrounding area. Its' presence would completely overwhelm other existing developments and the immediate environment. I am concerned that there are insufficient car parking spaces proposed for the development. This will lead to far more traffic in the environs of the development which will greatly affect local residents and businesses. The construction phase of a project of this size would have an extremely negative impact on the area and on its' residents and local businesses. I am alarmed that the development is contrary to previous local planning policies. In essence it is a personal view that this development, once finally completed, would be an architectural monstrosity wholly anomalous with the immediate local environment. Yours sincerely Dr. Ross McLean Owner of Flat 69, St. Ann's Quay, Newcastle-upon-Tyne | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| 2021/2404/01/EIA An objection on the Malmo Quay Development. I am someone who has spent a lot of time in the Oudeburn area over the past 4 or 5 years, mainly due to my own avid interest in our own unique and important role in our country's history. I wholeheartedly believe this plan for the living quarters will seriously affect the Ouseburn area, and the preservation of our history. The Ouseburn area has discovered something of a resurgence in the last several years, and not just amongst our fellow Northerners. The Ouseburn area is being recognised as one of the most desirable & exciting places to be in the World, and has featured in numerous articles stating just that. Lumping new flats right in the middle of it, with the design of these flats being incredibly incongruous is deeply harming to the reputation of the area. They do not fit in with the graded buildings, and the all-round historic feel of Ouseburn. And surely I need not remind you, MODERNISM IS NOT POPULAR! People are sick and tired of new, cheap buildings being plastered all over the place. We understand there is a need for it. BUT CHOOSE THE AREA WISELY! Do not just decide to put them in the most popular areas thinking they will enhance it. It has the complete opposite effect! We are sick and tired of this stuff. Do not ruin Newcastle's vibrant area for goodness sake. As well as that, the parking plans are wholly inadequate. Everybody has cars these days and the amount suggested just is not enough. This will create an awfully crowded area full of cars and traffic. The Metro stations are a long walk for anybody uncapable of such. Buses do not pass through the area often either. So I ask you, where is the planning for LIFE in this area?? Its all well and good putting flats in a nice area, sure. But there seems to be no thought for the actual living quality in this area. Please, show the members of the public that our council still has common sense, and listens to our concerns! Move this plan elsewhere, please. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| I write to you in order to express my opinion with regards to planning application 2021/2404/01/EIA – Malmo Quay and Spillers Quay development. As a local resident and visitor to the businesses in the Ouseburn area I list my objections below. Scale The site is entirely out of scale with the surrounding area, and would look out of place even in central Newcastle. The Hotel du Vin, Toffee Factory and St Lawrence Road apartments are in my opinion a reasonable guide for the scale of any new proposed developments, but the tower block is overly large in size and will obscure local landmarks including St Michael’s Church and even the Toffee Factory’s tower, as named in the Tyne Gorge Study. Transport routes My office is located on the quayside and I frequently cycle to and from work along from my partner’s flat in St Peters’ Basin and often park in the car park located next to the Cycle Hub in order to walk into work or the city when driving in from my home in Heaton. This development will negatively impact the residents and businesses in this area for the following reasons: · The 18 car parking spaces which are supposed to accommodate the inhabitants of 62 flats / apartments within the Malmo Quay tower block are entirely inadequate, especially when multiple vehicle ownership per flat is taken into consideration. It will result in more pressure on the quayside on-street parking, which will cause blockages to the cycle and pedestrian routes as well as road congestion in an area with already poor road infrastructure. · Additional traffic will increase air pollution in the Byker and Ouseburn area as a result of the increased congestion which surely is a move away from the Council’s aim to improve sustainability and tackle climate change. This will also detrimentally impact the outdoor spaces of the local residents and businesses. Housing needs I fail to see through the documents presented in the application how the new site will address Newcastle’s needs for more affordable family housing. The majority of the 18 storey building appears to be designed to attract high income earning, private renters which does not address the city’s need for more social, affordable accommodation. Noise Local businesses in the Ouseburn area including the Tyne Bar are at risk of disruption from potential noise complaints coming from new residents within the new development. These would be costly to resolve for already established local businesses and for the council, not to mention detrimental to local entrepreneurs who are in the process of recovering from the financial impact of the pandemic. I believe that the planning application does not comply with local policies and should be rejected and I ask that you consider the points stated above. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| As a local resident I strongly object to the building of this complex in the Ouseburn area. First and foremost - this will create a huge eyesore on the Riverside and obstruct the view from the Free Trade Inn - a pub known for its beautiful views of the Tyne. The sheer scale alone of the building is obstructive and cannot be made to "blend in" with the surrounding environment. The appearance will not be in keeping with the other buildings near by and will be a gentrification of the area. I suspect these buildings will be extortionately priced meaning locals are being priced out of the area. Furthermore, the addition of dozens more apartments means an increase in traffic in a largely pedestrian heavy area and a reduction in parking for local residents. The small number of parking spaces offered for these apartments will mean that cars will end up being parked along the lengths of the roads that provide access to the local pubs and shops making it more difficult for disabled people, wheelchair users and cyclists to pass through. Overall this is a very unwelcome proposal - and is not being built for the benefit of existing locals. It's being built to line the pockets of corporate construction firms and is not acceptable. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| I'd like to object to the scale and massing - it's an inappropriate development and will have a detrimental impact on local amenities. It will block daylight and sunlight that will have a negative affect on the wildlife in the area, whilst also having an impact on the local businesses who have big external areas where the sunlight will now be blocked. From a public health perspective, the traffic and congestion that this building will bring to an already busy area is very concerning. Finally, it's an absolute crude eye sore and will not fit in with the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| To whom it may concern, As a resident local to this proposed new development and as someone who spends a lot of time around Ouseburn, particularly at The Free Trade Inn, Tyne Bar, Di Meo's and Northern Rye, I strongly object to this proposal. I am not against regeneration of the area but this proposed development is incredibly out of keeping with historic buildings nearby as well as being a totally inappropriate height. A building of this size will have a huge impact in terms of blocking sunlight and casting a shadow including significant impact on existing businesses and residential properties including Free Trade Inn and Tyne Bar. Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. The submitted plans for Malmo Quay appear to only show 18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block, woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route 72 which runs along the Quayside. The Tyne Bar may see complaints about noise from residents despite the fact they were there first. Stripping a long standing business of a huge part of its trade and essence should not be deemed appropriate to placate owners of new flats. There also appears to be no consideration of affordable housing and is selling off Ouseburn to the highest bidder. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| The sheer size of the proposed Malmo Quay development would dominate the skyline of the Ouseburn area and cast a huge shadow over the surrounding houses, businesses and public spaces. The building is not in-keeping with the surrounding architecture in scale or style. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| Dear Sir/Madam, Please find below my comments to the objection of the planned development on Malmo Quay; 1. Traffic and Parking:- Access to the development via Horatio St will inevitability increase traffic along City Road, which already suffers from severe traffic congestion during peak hours. Furthermore, the entrance road at the top and bottom of Horatio St are already hazardous junctions, particularly at the top, where there are multiple junctions between Haratio St, Walker Rd and Ouse St. Horatio St is an old traditional cobbled road which cannot sustain constant heavy traffic flow. The increase in vehicles accessing the development will amplify the nose levels already experienced by nearby residents. With only 24 car park spaces between 77 homes, this is totally unrealistic and there has been no consideration in the proposal with regards to the existing issues with parking from nearby residential and commercial developments. The issues are evident when Spillers Wharf and all the roads in and around the area are used for parking 4. The sheer scale of the development is not in keeping with the surrounding area and will become an eye sore dwarfing the buildings along the quayside. This contradicts with Tyne Gorge study and tall building policy 6. Local amenities There has been a significant strain on local GP’s due to the increase of students living around Newcastle Quayside area. Access to appointments at the local GP is already a battle for residents on the Quayside. What considerations have been taken into account, if any? Regards Simon | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| This development threatens not only the impressive city vistas, including most notably the legendary view from the Free Trade Inn, but threatens the wonderfully special, but also fragile community into which the Ouseburn has evolved over the last 30 years. This scheme offers no provision for affordable housing and is only viable to the developer by building the tower block. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| Sophie Driver 61 Harbottle Court Byker Newcastle Ne6 2ah I would like to make an objection against planning permission in reference to the Malmö Quay development reference 2021/2404//01/EIA I want to object to the planning proposal as I feel a building of this size will have a huge impact in terms of blocking sunlight and casting a shadow including significant impact on existing businesses and residential properties including Free Trade Inn and the Tyne Bar. Yours sincerely. Miss Sophie Driver | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to this planned development on the basis that: The size of the proposed development is far too tall in comparison with other developments the surrounding area There would be inadequate parking, resulting in serious congestion and presenting safety issues for pedestrians and cyclists The proposed design is totally out of character with the nearby historic properties Accessibility to the area is restricted, having limited public transport and only minor road access | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| I have previously submitted an objection to this proposal but have recently identified an additional concern which I would like to register I believe that the developers have not made allowance for noise pollution from a nearby established pub (Tyne Bar) which would likely impact residents of the new development | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| I have previously submitted an objection to this proposal but have recently identified an additional concern which I would like to register I believe that the developers have not made adequate allowance for noise pollution from a nearby established pub (Tyne Bar) which would impact residents of the new development The application should be rejected due to adverse noise impact on prospective residents | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| I wish to object to this application. Although I am not currently a resident of the city, I work and recreate there. I am concerned that this development will change the attractive urban character of the area, including views of the iconic river frontage. I would add that if this development goes ahead there will almost certainly be complaints about "noise" from the new residents. These complaints will have to be considered by the Council, who will be duty-bound to issue Noise Abatement Notices, effectively putting an end to all live music from the legendary music venues in the area of the Ouseburn. In my view, this music scene is of international importance, attracting bands from around the world and plays a vital part in raising the profile of Newcastle. This should not be threatened by a vanity project of this nature. I would also feel that the proposed 18 storey building will be a welcoming site for nesting kittiwakes, leading to further conflict for this internationally important pelagic bird population. Plus its an eyesore, design principles seem to be based upon IKEA and are simply awful. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| Objection to: Planning Application 2021/2404/01/EIA Land on the former Malmo and Spillers quays on the north bank of the River Tyne, Quayside Road, Newcastle upon Tyne I am a member and trustee of The Ouseburn Trust with a particular interest in Heritage and have worked and volunteered in and around the Lower Ouseburn Valley for more than 30 years. I am a shareholder in a local business and spend about 12 hours per day working or volunteering in some way or meeting friends and work colleagues in the local community. My objection covers the following points: Scale, mass and heritage setting The 18-storey tower in the application is inappropriate in scale, mass and design and does not take into account the recommendations of the Tyne Gorge Study (2003), the Newcastle Tall Buildings SPD Scoping report (2017) or Historic England’s “The Setting of Heritage Assets” (2015). The tower is excessively high along the skyline when viewed from the Tyne Bridge. It would also act as a major barrier to Byker looking towards the quayside and the River Tyne beyond. The Lower Ouseburn Valley is home to a great number of Heritage Assets and this tower is quite simply insulting to all of them. It does not sit right in the environment the applicant is trying to place it in. It does not “conserve the rhythm of built development along the quayside and enhance the topography of the gorge side slope” as stated in the Tyne Gorge Study. Historic England states that “The number and proximity of heritage assets in urban areas mean that the protection and enhancement of setting is intimately linked to townscape and urban design considerations”. Local Community and Community engagement While community engagement was apparent in the early stages of Igloo’s development on the Ouseburn riverside, consultation and engagement in this latest phase has been severely lacking. Fig. 3.2 and Fig. 3.4 Pedestrian and Cycle Accessibility suggest that employment in the area only takes place at Hoult’s Yard? Not across and within the entire area of the Lower Ouseburn Valley which is home to numerous micro and small businesses in the creative industry sector. Section 2.3 of the Planning Application states that “St. Lawrence Road, Maling Street and Horatio Street are all local roads which are largely residential in nature’? This is just not true and shows a lack of community engagement and knowledge of the area. St. Lawrence Road, in particular is home to some 20 plus businesses and cannot be described as ‘largely residential’. Parking Fig. 3.9.2 Residential Car Parking. The provision of only 122 spaces across both Malmo and Spillers sites will have a negative impact on existing businesses and residents in the vicinity, which in turn will have a knock-on effect in the surrounding streets. Streets that are already being impacted by NCC’s Safer Greener City-wide travel plans. Fig. 3.9.4 Car Parking Management Plan – not allocating parking to residents will impact heavily on existing businesses/residents as new residents struggle to find safe places to park. Within the Archaeological Desk-based Assessment a photograph of Spiller’s Quay Car park on a normal working day shows at least 100 vehicles parked up, where will these go? Jostling with new residents/businesses in an already overcrowded location. Transport infrastructure The current road network is wholly inadequate for the development and improvements described within the application go no way towards alleviating this. Fig. 2.2, and Fig. 2.5.3 show how far away Byker Metro Station is from the planned sites but does not demonstrate the steep incline/stairs that need to be negotiated in order to reach it, from any route. There are many bus stops illustrated within the Pedestrian Accessibility section – but having a bus stop in place does not mean that a bus is going to pass any time soon. The Cycle Hub Previously known as Byker Ouseburn Regeneration Centre, a purpose-built building for the Ouseburn Water Sports Association in 1999. Designed by Jane Derbyshire and David Kendall, the building is now home to The Cycle Hub and Saddle Skedaddle. The building is also the location of HER 11013 - Sundial Sculpture designed by Helen Laws and Jane Gower in 1999. This public and community asset is much more complimentary to the surrounding Lower Ouseburn Heritage assets, providing much needed community space which is still available to use. It stands out on the skyline of the River Tyne in a much less obtrusive way, providing a gateway to the Lower Ouseburn Valley. The demolition of this asset is not wanted given the unimpressive, small and wholly inadequate replacement outlined on Malmo Quay with ramped access to the building “round the back of the bins”. Overall, this application demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the local community and the heritage setting in which it is proposed. There is world-wide interest in what happens to this site and it is therefore essential that we try our best to get it right. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| wish to object to this application for many reasons: It is not in keeping with the rest of the buildings around, especially the heritage buildings in the valley, the tower will be an eyesore looking up the Tyne along the waterline from the Tyne and Millennium Bridges. There is inadequate parking planned and not sufficient public transport. The two nearest metro stations are an uphill walk of around half a mile. Parking is already difficult in the area. The current Cycle Hub will be demolished and the replacement will not have sufficient room for the current businesses and will probably make the main business unviable. There is an issue with the development being built on land leading to fears of releasing lead and other contaminates once the sediment beneath is disturbed. Although initial residents will be warned about existing businesses, i.e. The Tyne Bar, Free Trade etc there is nothing stopping them or future residents complaining about music and noise from the pubs. The Ouseburn Valley grew up around these businesses who now see their future threatened. As there will be apartments above the Cycle Hub café this could also lead to reports of noise nuisance from residents. Although the council cannot take "loss of view" into account many feel the view from St Lawrence's Road, next to the Free Trade beer garden is more than just a view. I have seen many wedding parties and families after graduations having photographs taken at this spot. The view is a tourist destination in Newcastle in it's own right. There is a strong feeling from residents and local visitors to the Ouseburn Valley that this whole development will be a barrier to access the River Tyne and this part of the Quayside. Only those able to afford the not insubstantial cost of the apartments will be able to enjoy in future. An ex-councillor pointed out that because of Government directives for brownfield sites that Malmo Quay has to have housing built on it, there's no possibility of a green area for all to enjoy. If Newcastle City Council are trying to address a housing shortage, who will be able to afford apartments here? Certainly not your average local who enjoys all the valley has to offer. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| I and many people I know who live locally strongly object to this proposal. The quayside area around the Ouseburn has been developing organically in a wonderful way over the years and a vibrant and unique creative and rather alternative community has been built there over the years by local small businesses and entrepreneurs . The unique atmosphere of this area is what makes it so special and will effectively be on its way to bring g destroyed by developments of faceless high rises which only benefit rich people who want to live on the quayside and the developers who will reap the financial rewards. I will be truly heartbroken if this is allowed to go ahead and I know I speak also for many other ordinary local people. Yours Susie Robertson | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| I and many people I know who live locally strongly object to this proposal. The quayside area around the Ouseburn has been developing organically in a wonderful way over the years and a vibrant and unique creative and rather alternative community has been built there over the years by local small businesses and entrepreneurs . The unique atmosphere of this area is what makes it so special and will effectively be on its way to bring g destroyed by developments of faceless high rises which only benefit rich people who want to live on the quayside and the developers who will reap the financial rewards. I will be truly heartbroken if this is allowed to go ahead and I know I speak also for many other ordinary local people. Yours Susie Robertson | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| I and many people I know who live locally strongly object to this proposal. The quayside area around the Ouseburn has been developing organically in a wonderful way over the years and a vibrant and unique creative and rather alternative community has been built there over the years by local small businesses and entrepreneurs . The unique atmosphere of this area is what makes it so special and will effectively be on its way to bring g destroyed by developments of faceless high rises which only benefit rich people who want to live on the quayside and the developers who will reap the financial rewards. I will be truly heartbroken if this is allowed to go ahead and I know I speak also for many other ordinary local people. Yours Susie Robertson | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| I’d like to offer my objection to the Malmo Quay development as set out above. I note that in the council’s planning policy document at 16.72, the council states that ‘We will support growth by: • Promoting housing in a mixed-use environment next to a variety of uses, creating a vibrant, distinctive area, • Promoting leisure, culture and tourism that complements the existing diverse mix of uses, • Promoting the Ouseburn as a home for arts, cultural, media uses, the creative sector and small-to-medium scale development that sustains and enhances the existing fine grain character. Having fully reviewed the plans, consulted with family members and reviewed the dismay offered by a number of local outlets via their social media channels, I cannot reconcile how this development gets anywhere close to achieving the aims of the policy as set out above. Firstly, the housing involved is nowhere near mixed use despite the developers claims. This development will attract the worst kind of ownership and profit chasing landlords. I’m sure the planning committee can see exactly what they are opening up based on other quayside developments. Is this the sustainable future the committee seeks for a vibrant area? Does this development complements the existing diverse mix of uses? No. It puts a dagger straight through the Free Trade Inn and the unique perspective it offers to Ouseburn. This pub has acted as the beacon for this part of the region for decades. I’d ask the committee to consider the number of Instagram posts that attract global interest from this pub alone, my grandchildren have shown me many sunsets! Finally, I see nothing that promotes the Ouseburn as a home for arts, cultural and media uses here. Redevelopment is good, but too much kills the unique nature of an area. I’d offer up a number of developments in London and Manchester (expensive sterile flats where the Hacienda once stood?) as evidence. Ouseburn is a beautiful place. I think the developers have done enough. | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| f | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| As someone who lives in the Ouseburn Ward, I object to this planned development in the strongest possible terms. Although some sort of development would be welcome on the site (it's been empty for a while), any development should add and not take away from its surrounding area. It is obvious that the scale of this planned development is inappropriate (just look at the mocked up views!), not nice to look at, will stick out like a sore thumb and take away from the surrounding area. For example, there are a number of listed buildings such as Toffee Factory, Sailors Bethal and Glasshouse Bridge in close proximity to the proposed development. The sitelines of all of these important local heritage sites would be severely impacted. The sheer size of the tower will surely have an impact in terms of blocking sunlight. This will cast a shadow on a number of residential properties (such as Steenberg Yard, Mariners Wharf & City Peaks) and a number of long running, established businesses which rely on having nice outside spaces during the spring and summer months (Tyne Bar & Free Trade Inn). The submitted plans also seem to not provide adequate parking, which will almost certainly create parking issues in the surrounding area and along the Quayside. As cycling route 72 (used towards the end of the very popular 'Coast to Coast' cycle) runs alongside the Quayside, this is likely to increase the risk of traffic accidents in the area. To sum up, the proposed tower is ugly, does not fit in with the historic surrounding area and will cause a number of issues for the local area. A development smaller in scale would be much more appropriate in this location. Tomos Robinson 46 Heaton Park View NE6 5HY | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| 2021/2404/01/EIA Malmo Quay development comments: The size of the proposed development is significantly larger than anything in the area, which is renowned for being an undisturbed area of the city. The size of the tower block is evidently going to block daylight for the large amount of residents nearby and general public enjoying the spaces, particularly the Tyne Bar which would be directly underneath the tower. Zoe Cotterill 137 Simonside Terrace, NE6 5LF | 15/02/2022 | Object |
| Planning Application: 2021/2404/01/EIA Malmo Quay Development I strongly object to this proposed development and make the following points: The 18-storey structure will stand out like an offensive ‘sore thumb’ in the mouth of the Ouseburn. It will completely dominate the skyline and change the character of the Ouseburn Valley leaving it in a gloomy shade. The dwellings on the upper levels of the structure will overlook and invade the privacy of those living in neighbouring properties. I would welcome housing with heights similar to neighbouring properties since this could improve the aesthetics of that area and mask the sewage pumping station that is sited on that plot. Parking: This proposal provides significantly less than one parking space per household. Whilst I appreciate that Newcastle City council is opposed to personal car ownership, this is not matched by the provision of realistic alternatives. E-scooters are not suitable unless you are fit, healthy and, at most, only carrying a small backpack. Whilst a zero-car household is possible for those who work in the city, many people (including those in neighbouring streets) work elsewhere and currently have one or more cars. Parking is difficult today and this development will only exacerbate this situation. There are already parking conflicts between residents, their visiting trades people (plumbers, electricians, etc) and those customers of local businesses (bakery, bars, coffee shop, restaurants, etc) Increased vehicular traffic on cycle route 72: The proposal will significantly increase traffic volume on Quayside/cycle route 72 endangering pedestrians (and their dogs), cyclists and e-scooter users. Access to the Quayside/cycle route 72: both Horatio Street and St Lawrence Road have awkward hairpin junctions onto the Quayside/cycle route. Increased traffic will increase the likelihood of road traffic accidents. The Q3 Bus Service was re-routed away from the Quayside some time ago (I presume to avoid pedestrians nearer the Millennium bridge). The bus was not re-routed up Horatio Street onto City Road because the bus would not be able to negotiate the hairpin junction. Local services: The proposed increased number of dwellings will overwhelm local council services that are already quite stretched. For example: those who walk in this area can see that the council, despite support from voluntary litter pickers and responsible dog owners, is fighting a losing battle. A walk around this area involves a slalom around the increasing amounts of dog mess. In summary: the 18 Storey development is an eyesore that will completely change the character of the area. It will increase to an intolerable level the burden on already stretched services and facilities. Existing residents and visitors will be overlooked and overshadowed by this Ouseburn ‘sore thumb’. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I would like to object to the proposed planning application 2021/2404/01/EIA for the Malmo Quay area for the following reasons: 1. Building design is too large and out of keeping with the other buildings in the area. It is far bigger than any other building in the area and would overshadow other businesses and apartments in the area 2. Building materials proposed do not fit in with the local architecture. Other developments have at least tried to fit in with local architecture, It is neither appropriate to the area nor interesting or inventive. 3. Parking - parking proposals are inadequate for the building and housing amounts proposed. There is very limited public transport in the area and the lack of parking suggests small narrow roads around the area will become congested with parking. 4. Interruption to leisure and exercise space - interrupts popular walking and cycling route along the quayside. Will affect passing trade to local businesses within the area. 5. Loss of free greenspace | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I write to object to the proposed application. The proposed design of the tower is not considered to successfully integrate into the surroundings and nor does it distinguish itself as a piece of exemplary architecture. Often when additional height is proposed it can act as a way finding point, a key nodal point or marking something of prominence. In this instance there is no justification for a building of this height. The tower lacks the qualities to be a landmark building. The chamfered element fails to mitigate the additional height and appears tokenistic at best. At present there are concerns with the solid to void ratio of the tower facades with a particularly clumpy fenestration composition in the upper storeys. The poor quality can also be demonstrated by the ill considered plant on the roof. This will be highly visible when viewed from afar and provides a poor capping to the building. It therefore needs t one better integrated into the overall design. The height and design of the tower is considered to be harmful to the adjacent Lower Ouseburn Valley Conservation Area and a significant number of listed buildings. I also wish to raise objection of the height of the houses. These are a missed opportunity and further consideration should be to enlargement and better integration with the river. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| It is for the following reasons that I strongly object to the above proposal of the Malmo Quay Tower block. Firstly, the overpowering size, layout and density of this proposed development is not in keeping with the topography of the general area. Ouseburn is home to several listed buildings including Sailors Bethal Chapel (built in 1875), the Toffee Factory (1878) and the Tyne Bar Public House (1904). These vastly important buildings hold such character and are at the heart of Newcastle’s history, so to place said tower block in the midst of this would be highly inappropriate. Finally, the enormity of the proposed tower block building would inevitably have huge impact in regard to blocking sunlight and overshadow. This would have detrimental effect on residential properties (Mariners Wharf, Malings, Steenberg Yard and City Peaks) and businesses with gardens (the Free Trade Inn and the Tyne Bar). | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| It is for the following reasons that I strongly object to the above proposal of the Malmo Quay Tower block. Firstly, the overpowering size, layout and density of this proposed development is not in keeping with the topography of the general area. Ouseburn is home to several listed buildings including Sailors Bethal Chapel (built in 1875), the Toffee Factory (1878) and the Tyne Bar Public House (1904). These vastly important buildings hold such character and are at the heart of Newcastle’s history, so to place said tower block in the midst of this would be highly inappropriate. Finally, the enormity of the proposed tower block building would inevitably have huge impact in regard to blocking sunlight and overshadow. This would have detrimental effect on residential properties (Mariners Wharf, Malings, Steenberg Yard and City Peaks) and businesses with gardens (the Free Trade Inn and the Tyne Bar). | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| My objection statement to the proposed Malmo Quay development 2021/2404/01/EIA. As someone who works in the Building Services sector, I’d like to start by making it clear that I am not opposed to new development schemes in general, I understand their importance, the benefits they can bring, and the need for affordable housing in particular. Some of the more recent developments in the area such as the Toffee Factory Business Centre and Steenburg’s Yard apartments are superb, they look great and bring huge benefits to the Ouseburn. This proposed 18 storey development on the unique land of Malmo Quay at the mouth of the Ouseburn does not follow in that tradition, and I was horrified when I saw proposals for a building so out of kilter with the existing environment and topography of the area. The quayside is already home to many relatively modern residential developments, affordable flats such as those in Ouseburn Wharf and higher value properties like St Anns Quay. These all tastefully complement the surrounding historic sites and buildings well, but this Malmo Quay proposal does not by any stretch of the imagination. Public transport is not readily available in the area, the Q2 bus is limited and no longer takes the route of Quayside road, most people in the area drive. As a recent former resident of Ouseburn Wharf I know this first hand. The number of parking spaces proposed for this Malmo Quay development is way outnumbered by the number of residential units proposed. This will have a huge impact on congestion in the relatively narrow streets below. This would lead to higher air pollution and daily disruption and the impact on existing residents and businesses will be unacceptable. The proposed parking on Spiller’s Wharf is not part of this application, but even if it were the proposed parking provision on that site barely matches the need for that development, so is of no use to prospective residents of this site. The close proximity to several listed buildings and assets such as the Glass House Bridge directly behind, and the Grade II Listed Ouseburn School also deems this tower block inappropriate. Fire safety is another big concern, having this many residents housed in such a small area with limited access is potentially dangerous. A proposed building of this mass and scale would be controversial almost anywhere, and usually the design and purpose would have to be so good, so pioneering, as well as highly practical in order to justify its existence. The design of this building does not meet these key tests. The footprint of the main block is huge in area, it is not slender or elegant. A building of this enormity is likely to block out light to the existing quayside flats, and The Tyne Bar located behind it. It does not blend into its surroundings in any way, it is impractical and three times taller than any other built structure around it. It does not use shape, colour or desirable finishes in order to enhance its appearance, and even the low level buildings do not complement the existing environment and riverside walkways. It will be ruining to the Ouseburn and views across Newcastle’s east end if this proposal, or indeed anything like it were to go ahead. I understand that it is a premium piece of land, but that is not a reason to permanently devastate a thriving community. The priority for addressing the housing deficit should be using appropriate brownfield sites for affordable housing. Malmo Quay, with its unique and picturesque perspective on the river Tyne should be used as a recreation space, or a space for small events and small homegrown enterprise, so it can be enjoyed by the wider community for decades to come. Kind regards, Andrew Crow 25 Heaton Grove, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 5NN | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I don't understand the logic of a high-rise building right on the river. Newcastle's cityscape is unique because of the steep sides of the Tyne gorge. The buildings line those steep sides and seem to grow organically upwards as they move away from the river. This building would utterly destroy that dynamic - it would stand out like a sore thumb at this location. It would be perfectly placed to blight the amazing views - from the east towards the city centre and from the quayside westwards, towards the sea. If a building of such prominence and height was a magnificent design and genuinely innovative and beautiful in its own right, then you could maybe make an exception. But this building is neither of those things. It is not even challenging, it is just plain drab. And beige. Why would anyone design a top-to-bottom beige block of flats? It looks dated before it's even built. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| As a resident of Newcastle for over 30 years and a regular visitor to Ouseburn over the majority of these years I wish to strongly object to Application 2021/2404/01/EIA (the Malmo Quay development). It is clear from the images of the proposed scheme that it is out-of-place to the rest of the buildings in the area and does not fit in with the rest of appearance of the area. Not only is it incongruous to the rest of Ouseburn and the immediate area, but it will create issues to existing residents in terms of blocking sunlight and potentially a lack of privacy with the proposed building overlooking them. Additionally, the addition of that number of residential properties will add to parking and access issues. As a regular cyclist along with many others along the locality this can only create more problems. Also, the Tyne Bar have had an Environmental Acoustics Practice review the application who have concluded that "this application should be refused. This is because it does not meet the technical requirements expected of it to meet national planning policy or guidance, and the likely impact on residents and the future of the Tyne Bar mean this should be prevented by rejecting the application outright." The Tyne Bar, and its live music, is something which should be treasured as part of the cultural pull of Ouseburn. From this review it is clear that the applicants have not considered noise pollution from the surrounding area of Ouseburn, including the Tyne Bar. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| As a local resident, I am concerned about the Malmo Quay development (2021/2404/01/EIA ) for a number of reasons. While the majority of recent developments in the Ousburn have been appropriate/sympathetic to the location, this proposal is not. The size and scale of the tower is out of keeping with the surroundings, and will have a negative impact on existing, historic buildings, and the character of the area, which is an important part of Newcastle's industrial heritage; the design is not appropriate for the setting. The proposed height of the tower is also likely to block sunlight for surrounding residentil properties and businesses. Roads in the Ouseburn are limited, as is public transport (there are no direct buses; nearby bus and metro stations are some way away). It is difficult to see how a residential towerblock with over 60 flats can be accomodated when proposed parking facilities are so limited; the proposal will impact negatively on the existing transport infrastructure. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I wish to object to the Malmo Quay development on the following grounds: 1. The building, which is of little architectural merit, will mar the skyline and the general view of an iconic and unique cityscape, locally and from the historic Tyne Bridge. It will make a negative impact on the surrounding area (the entire Lower Ouseburn Valley Conservation Area) where there are many buildings of highly significant heritage interest, eg St Ann’s Church and the Old Ouseburn School to name two. 2. Public transport is limited to one local bus route and it is naive to assume that this will negate the need for car ownership. Consequently the provision for parking is inadequate, especially for the home charging of EVs which are becoming ever more prevalent. 3. Archeological concerns about the toxic and unstable nature of the proposed site leading to damage and pollution of the iconic River Tyne. | 16/02/2022 | |
| I would like to object to the building at Malmo Quays. The proposed monstrosity would be a blot on the landscape not in keeping with the current skyline of Newcastle. It would result in substantial and sustained harm to multiple heritage assets. I do not believe Igloo have made proper allowance for noise pollution from Tyne Bar & surrounding Ouseburn activities, asking new residents to keep their windows closed is just not good enouth. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| Strongly object to the proposed Malmo Quay development. The scale of the proposed building is not at all sympathetic to the area, and will cause substantial overshadowing to surrounding properties and businesses. There would be inadequate parking, which is already a problem in this area, along with increased traffic and congestion, negatively affecting air quality and the standard of living for existing residents in the area. The block will not provide affordable housing for the surrounding community, but luxury housing for the few. It's very clear from the proposal that the developer has no regard for the Ouseburn, it’s community or heritage, only for their own profiteering. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| This development is a terrible idea and I cannot see why the council would approve of its construction. Not only will the building be a eyesore and ruin the beautiful appearance of the quayside, it is also completely unnecessary as there are plenty of empty and rundown developments which could be used instead- we are all being told to do our bit to reduce, reuse, and recycle and building a new development goes entirely against this philosophy. The Ouseburn has been gentrified enough already over the past few years, and this building would only continue that trend of pushing out lower income individuals and families in order to cater for wealthy landlords who will buy out the apartments and rent at extortionate rates further preventing first-time and low income buyers who are trying to get on the housing ladder. Local businesses will suffer, and the council will lose the little trust the citizens of Newcastle still have in them if this construction goes ahead. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to this application due to the reasons outlined below. 18 storeys is an unnecessary scale for this development- and not in keeping with the style or height of residential development in the local area and the conservation area. Consideration should be made for the appropriate scale, size and appearance of this development, especially given the location. The topography around the Ouseburn valley means that not only will this development create an visual impact on the area (with its out of character height) but also impacts the surrounding area through overshadowing and the potential for overlooking and loss of privacy. Many other residential developments have been erected around this area, of much smaller scale and have managed to create layouts and proposals that meet the needs of the housing supply and the council's policies, without having to propose a tower of this scale. The urban core policy CS2 states that the development should be ’Securing high-quality design that promotes local distinctiveness and sustains and enhances the historic environment’. This style of proposal, the scale of which is out of character does not promote local distinctiveness. And will not enhance the historic environment of this area. Policy QO1 relates to promoting the development of the Quayside and Ouseburn Sub-Area . It says that the area should be developed by ‘respecting the scale, plot sizes, topography and historic grain of the area.’ Although it is argued that the tower will create a ‘visual interest from afar’ and complement the existing skyline, arguably from certain angles it will block the visual interest of other key Newcaste site lines that already exist. From the visuals that are included in the application, it is clear to see that this towers over the surrounding location and looks out of place. I also object to the premise that a percentage of affordable homes are not proposed in this development due to viability concerns. Simply arguing that the public realm will create spaces for all is not enough, and affordable housing should be a given, especially in a development of this size. Although the Core Strategy Policy CS11 mentions that it is subject to viability, It seems this is used as a tool for developers to not consider this as an option at all. If a project is not viable for the developer, then we must question why it should go ahead. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| Hi, I have lived in Heaton my entire life and while it has been promising seeing the Ouseburn area develop I think that the Malmo Quay Tower (application reference 2021/2404/01/EIA) is not in keeping with either the Quayside or the wider Newcastle area in general. The size, layout and density of the proposed development is not appropriate given the existing topography and given the many flat developments that are already in the vicinity, I am concerned that this would greatly increase the number of people living in this area creating issues with parking, access and servicing which are already very limited. As someone who cares a lot about the environment I am also concerned about the sustainability of the proposed development. It was not long ago when the river Tyne and Ouseburn were effectively dead rivers and a lot of work has been done to improve the health of these natural environments. I believe that this construction work and increased pressure from and presence of people, through noise, disturbance and pollution would undo the positive work that has been done to support the natural wildlife in this area. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| Chantal Ward-Mercer of 32 The Oval, Walker, Newcastle NE6 3LH responding to MALMO QUAY development proposal. 2021/2404/01/EIA I am writing as I am very concerned about the proposed 'Malmo Quay' tower block. The Ouseburn is one of the few spaces near the city centre with green open spaces, it is currently a nice area for locals to visit and holds a positive impact on the surrounding area through both scenery, wildlife and local culture. The development proposes a tower block right next to the river, I feel that it's obvious from the obnoxious size of this unsightly building that it will create considerable pollution and massive disruption to the surrounding area, both in its construction and in its business intention. As a Walker resident I commute through the roads surrounding the development 6 days a week and frequently travel at other times, I can only see this as a massive hazard to productivity and not for any good reason. Additionally I wonder what the council will do to deal with the already high traffic in the area if this construction goes ahead. The city road leading to Walker road is already dangerous enough, a man crashed and died on the road just last week, I can only imagine what will happen if more construction sites and extra people are thrown into the mix. There has already been planning permission for an array of different housing blocks in the area, this area is becoming more densely populated by the minute and this will not be aided by building hideous tower blocks upwards when there is no infrastructure on the ground to support the surge. Furthermore, how will this building affect access to the Quayside for the general population? At the moment people are free to walk along the Quayside and it is easy to access via transport, it seems obvious that putting a gigantic building in the middle of an open space will slow traffic and cause problems with access to the river. They may own a small patch of land, but why should they control the use of all land around it via transport disruptions and massive overshadowing? Additionally the massive size of the tower block seems ludicrous with the position Malmo Quay has suggested, not only does it stick out like a sore thumb on the proposal imagery, the needlessly tall building will massively overshadow all the buildings and the river walk which surround it. The design has no consideration for the topography of the area, much as its function has no necessity in the area. The effects of this over shadowing and overcrowding on the area will be massively damaging, in the North East we have already seen the damaging impact of tower blocks as antisocial spaces with a noted impact on crime statistics. I can't help but think this malmo quay tower block will cause the same problem as its predecessors. Daylight and the ability to see open water having noted positive physiological impacts for people in built up areas like Byker and the Quayside. Finally I worry not only for the people this will negatively affect through its numerous dangerous impacts, but also for the ecological effect this construction will have. Have these "developers" Malmo given any thought to conserving this historic area? No construction of this magnitude can be good for the environment, the council would be better to seek ways to improve for example the water quality in the river than continue building around it. The noise pollution from this will be appalling, both for the length of construction and the suggested usage of the Malmo tower block, tenants from the area have repeatedly raised noise concerns in the past, this also has a devastating effect on wildlife in the area. There are currently nesting swans in the ouseburn who swim right up to the Tyne and past the proposed site, I doubt they will survive construction. Additionally i cant see any proposed purpose to this Malmo tower block that is not already filled in the surrounding area. Having worked and lived in the area I can only see a negative impact from building another tower block, I don't see any value to the local community and I don't see any positive impact on the area. The council would be better served to focus on supporting the preexisting local businesses in the area. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I object in the strongest possible terms to this application. The proposed building development is completely at odds with the character of the Ouseburn Valley and will create an overpowering eyesore, ruining iconic views up and down the Tyne. Additionally, there is overwhelming evidence that the developers have not taken noise factors from the Tyne Bar and other well established, popular local venues into account. The proposed development will only serve to increase tensions in the area and threaten live music and other cultural activities at venues that have already been hammered by the pandemic. The Ouseburn is a vital cradle for the creative industries in Newcastle and must remain so, without the incursion of completely unnecessary residential development. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I am writing to object to this planning application. A tower block of this size and design in Ouseburn would threaten the spirit of the area. The proposed development would ruin views across Ouseburn, not least the iconic view of the river from the Free Trade Inn, and its bland design is out of keeping with the historic repurposed industrial buildings that characterise the area. Ouseburn is Newcastle's creative hub and brings immeasurable value to the city. Allowing this development to go ahead would be, in my opinion, short-sighted and damaging. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I am writing to object to this planning application. A tower block of this size and design in Ouseburn would threaten the spirit of the area. The proposed development would ruin views across Ouseburn, not least the iconic view of the river from the Free Trade Inn, and its bland design is out of keeping with the historic repurposed industrial buildings that characterise the area. Ouseburn is Newcastle's creative hub and brings immeasurable value to the city. Allowing this development to go ahead would be, in my opinion, short-sighted and damaging. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I am writing to object to this planning application. A tower block of this size and design in Ouseburn would threaten the spirit of the area. The proposed development would ruin views across Ouseburn, not least the iconic view of the river from the Free Trade Inn, and its bland design is out of keeping with the historic repurposed industrial buildings that characterise the area. Ouseburn is Newcastle's creative hub and brings immeasurable value to the city. Allowing this development to go ahead would be, in my opinion, short-sighted and damaging. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| This will ruin the Ouseburn Community as it offers no affordable housing, few parking spaces allocated for the apartments, is being build on the cycle route and will be an eye sore. It will ruin the beauty of the area. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| The proposal I object to for the following reasons. This is a very popular place for visitors, to the bars, Free Trade as well as the Tyne and those enjoying the quayside especially on foot or walking. Currently there is little traffic making it pleasant to walk and cycle especially across the little arched bridge. This will change significantly with such a high density proposal, with new residents needing parking. The 18 storey tower is far too big and does not fit in aesthetically with its surroundings. I often walk around byker, Clydesdale road, st Peter's road and enjoy the views down to the river, similarly when travelling via metro across the byker bridge. These views will be affected, to the point of being spoilt, especially of the bridges. The tower proposal is grey and drab, and will affect natural light, which is vital to the health of city residents. The hub cycle centre is a beacon for those travelling on the Sea to Sea cycleway, as well as general traffic, again on foot and cycle that enjoy refreshments in airy surroundings, this capacity will be reduced under the new proposal. The Tyne bar is renowned as a music venue, and many of its best gigs are outdoors under the arch. Inevitably at least some of the new residents will object to these sounds, even though this bar has been going for many years. A company specialising in acoustics has highlighted this issue. The surrounding buildings are all low rise and clearly the new 18 storey proposal would not sit well with this low rise approach. So because of the effects on sunlight/ daylight, increased motor vehicle traffic, caused by large increase in residency, and the destruction of hub building which serves a vital service, and especially the impact of a huge 18 storey building out of keeping with the surroundings, I object whole heartedly with the proposal. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I have several strong objections to the planning proposal. The first objection is to the scale, in which the design is out of proportion with the existing landscape including heritage buildings and structures such as the Toffee Factory, Sailors Bethel and the Ouseburn School, and its overpowering dimensions that overshadow the much-loved Tyne Bar and Free Trade Inn, as well as the Glasshouse Bridge. This highly inappropriate scale leads to the other objections I have against the proposal, involving its overshadowing and loss of light not only to nearby buildings (which is not insignificant) but for pedestrians such as myself along the river route. The scale also necessarily leads to problems of density, which has a knock-on effect again on traffic considerations for myself as a pedestrian having to navigate increased traffic as well as stationery blocks in the road brought about through increased residential parking as well as visitor parking which will inevitably spill out both along the river and in the streets around it. If I read the proposal correctly, there will be approximately 140- 150 new residential dwellings, which would put a large and consistent pressure on the existing roads, for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers. I live in South Heaton in NE6 and the only public transport that goes anywhere near it is the quayside bus that goes along Walker Road, and I believe that is insufficient to support the implied population density of the development. I believe that the density and scale of the development will necessarily lead to a significant increase in car use here, with attendant problems of increased pollutants from the traffic, leading to harmful air quality for people, which seems a strange thing to promote at the same time as the council is trying to find ways to mitigate and reduce air pollution just a little way up the river along the Tyne Bridge. In addition to the objections I have outlined above, the poor quality of the design also needs to be taken into account. The drawings show a design that is out of keeping with the existing topography, and shows little understanding of the actual site, in which such height and massing demonstrates a lack of sympathy with the existing use and buildings of the area, and little understanding of its placement along the river. If the proposed development were to go ahead, its siting would manage to blight two rivers, the Tyne and the Ouseburn. There is a character and spirit to the area which is not reflected in the quality of design of the proposal. As well as visual issues with the quality of design and scale and massing issues with its knock-on effects on public amenities, transport and air quality, there are also acoustic issues. The Tyne Bar is a popular and loved live-music venue, and part of what makes the Ouseburn special. The soundscape is a part of the Ouseburn topographical environment. There is a genuine risk that the proposed residential development will lead to noise complaints that would have a prohibitive effect that is detrimental for culture in the Ouseburn as a vibrant area of music and arts. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| As someone who has worked in the Ouseburn for over 20 years I do believe this proposal is a missed opportunity, an opportunity that could produce a truly amazing development that complements and adds to the special culture and heritage of the Ouseburn, the East End and Newcastle as a whole. The scale and massing of the proposed tower block is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the mouth of the Ouseburn diminishing rather than enhancing this special area. The massing of the overall development seems to obstruct many views from many levels and angles from within the Ouseburn valley and surrounding area while adding no real value. The quality of design seems to have little merit and does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the area. We can do better, I think the developer has shown they can do better – and the people and future generations of the Ouseburn, the East End and Newcastle deserve a better development in this potentially iconic location. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I am writing today to object to this new building development. As someone who's grown up in the area, I think it would be greatly detrimental to the economy of the local area and will ruin the picturesque scenery that the area is known for. It would be a catastrophe for such a project to go ahead, some things are greater than money. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| This building is the rich stealing the view of the quayside from the public. Local pubs will suffer severely and will struggle to stay open. This building is just selfishness and brings nothing to the community, it only takes away. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to this as it will ruin the view of the river, it doesn’t keep with the aesthetic of the current quayside which is mostly low rise. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| The plans for the development of the development of an 18 story apartment block are completely out of keeping with developments across the Ouseburn area and the whole of the Quayside. They will deter from an area which is culturally and socially important to the city and attracts a lot of visitors and regular customers to the businesses in the surrounding area. This building will be far too tall and so not in keeping with surrounding buildings and the general lay out of the area. The Council has a responsibility in it’s Core Urban Plan to develop areas where people want to live, work and enjoy the city. This building will be detrimental to all those who live, work or visit the area other than the occupants of the tower. So much will be lost for the many for the benefit of the few. A building of this size will have a huge impact in terms of blocking sunlight and casting a shadow including significant impact on existing businesses and residential properties including the Free Trade Inn and Tyne Bar. The tower block and other proposed blocks are in keeping with each other but not with the rest of the Quayside. They are bland and commercial properties not taking into consideration the other buildings, including listed buildings in the area. The Council should be looking to applications to develop the area which enhances the cultural strengths of the area to draw in visitors and increase economic development. This plan only brings in economic benefits to the developers and should be rejected out of hand. The area is very popular for people taking walks and cycling and enjoying the views and business offers. The number of cars and parking spaces needed to accommodate them for the new buildings will make the area potentially unsafe and certainly less attractive for physical activity. We already have issues with people not being active enough and this will only make things worse. The road layout in the area is completely unsuited and already suffers form people using these as rabbit runs and there is a distinct lack of public transport meaning this would only get worse. The Quayside Bus is the only service I know of and the metro is too far away to be a realistic option. The roads are currently suitable for cycling and encourage pedestrians, more cars will impact this dramatically for the worse. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I would like to completely reject to the proposed development of the Malmo Quay, aside from being a culturally and historic site of importance for the area - as a resident and worker of the local area this would cause a serious impact upon traffic, access to local amenities and visual pollution. The buildings would also cause an issue going forward with overshadowing of a well lit area, something that should be a lesson learnt from the recent pandemic restrictions. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I strongly object the proposed development on Malmo Quay for the following reasons: AESTHETICS In particular, the design of the 18 storey concrete tower block which absolutely DOES NOT fit in with, or is sympathetic AT ALL to the local character and history of the Ouseburn area. In fact, the residents of the Ouseburn will be “treated” to the view of the back of this overshadowing building which will clearly dominate and obscure views of the quayside and iconic bridges no matter where you are looking from, as you can plainly see from the proposed images. This building is completely uninspiring, absurdly dominant and completely out of context to the local area. The lower buildings also disrupt an iconic view of the River Tyne, its bridges and the critically acclaimed architecture on its shores. PARKING AND TRANSPORT As someone who works in the area and parks on St Lawrence Road, I can attest to the already problematic lack of parking in the Ouseburn area. As I understand it, this development is only providing 30% of the proposed dwellings with one carparking space each. As this is marketed as a Luxury build, you can only imagine this will fall drastically short of the extra car parking needed for these new dwellings, which will cause even more parking pressure and road congestion to an area which currently doesn’t have much infrastructure in terms of easy access to a metro station or other means of public transport. These issues will only be magnified when the proposed developments for Spillers Quay take the place of the much used free carparking on Spillers Quay. I also think that the increased traffic down St Lawrence Road, which will be one of the main ways to access to the proposed development, will have a drastic impact on the safety of pedestrians and cyclists alike. It is an extremely narrow road with a tight blind bend used by many to access the river's cycle route and The Cycle Hub. IMPACT ON LOCAL BUSINESS The Tyne Bar frequently puts on live music in its outdoor space. What will happen when this begins to irritate new residents? Complaints and a probably removal of their outdoor music licence, which will have a huge impact on their revenue. And for the Free Trade Inn just up the hill, many visit this iconic pub because of the world famous view up the river from its beer gardens and picture windows. The proposed development completely disrupts this view and could drastically impact their revenue too. And finally, The Cycle Hub, which has become an important community asset over the years. Whilst a new building is being offered to the Cycle Hub on the Malmo Quay site, the facility won’t be anywhere near as big, and wont have the parking / access it currently has for mobility challenged users and those bringing their bikes to get fixed. The Hub also provides an important meeting and socialising space for the community, which we cannot afford to lose. In conclusion, I think this monstrosity of a development, if allowed to go ahead, will be significantly detrimental to the area and its residents whilst having an irreversible impact on the iconic views of the River Tyne. I hope you take my objection into account. Thank you. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I believe the proposed plans will deprive houses and businesses of sunlight, obstruct the view of the listed buildings in the Ouseburn valley and as a design will be out of character with the loved industrial heritage look of the area. Also Music, arts, independent pubs and bars have and should always be able to thrive in the local area of Ouseburn and surrounding areas and should not be subject to potential noise complaints by residents. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| The area in which the planned development is has several listed buildings and heritage assets such as Tyne Bar, Toffee Factory and Glasshouse Bridge. The building will alter the site line and enjoyment of these buildings. It will also block sunlight from Tyne Bar and Free Trade Inn, another important building in the area. Furthermore, the style of the building will alter the look and character of the quayside and Ouseburn in general, an area which is historic and key to Newcastle. Furthermore, this area is already inaccessible by public transport with any metro station a kilometre, the roads are already busy and difficult to park on, the proposed parking will only add to this problem and make the roads more dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians. Overall, the proposed development will ruin business for many key institutions and greatly affect those who live and work in the area. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I object in the strongest possible terms to this proposal on the grounds of aesthetics, design quality, lack of consideration for parking, flood risk, access, air and water quality and impact on local wildlife, habitat, bike route, public transport and walking routes. This building would not only adversely affect but actively work to REVERSE the progress in that area of rewilding, diversity, local community, business and social engagement. If economic and financial considerations are the only ones that will be heard, then I implore you to consider the impact on the skyline, the reduced attractiveness of the area, the lower visitor numbers and revenue into the local economy. Appealing to your better nature I invite you to visit the Cycle Hub, Free Trade Inn, Tyne Bar and Mushroom Works and reflect whether a T Dan Smith style carbuncle will actually add to your experience. Be honest. The answer is emphatically NO. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| The scale and size of this building is completely inappropriate for the Quay and the Ouseburn area. It completely disregards the repercussions for the plethora of independent businesses that add so much vibrancy and culture to our brilliant city as well as the residents and wider community. A building of this size has the potential to have considerable impact on daylight, sunlight and overshadowing for current local residents of Mariners Wharf, Malings, Steenberg Yard, City Peaks. The shadow of the building will also have a significant impact on iconic existing businesses e.g. The Tyne Bar and the Free Trade Inn, which are historic social and cultural hubs of Newcastle upon Tyne. Ouseburn is a cultural hub of Newcastle that has yet to be commercialised to the extent of the rest of the city, it is feared that the development of Malmo Quays is set to change this. It is inconceivable to me that this development fits with the Quayside and Ouseburns built environment which is defined by distinctive, historical buildings. Worse still it could potentially alter the siteline and access to heritage buildings like: Grade II Listed Ouseburn School Sailors Bethal Tyne Bar Public House Toffee Factory Glasshouse Bridge If plans go ahead there will be a surge in associated vehicles for building and development as well as an increased need for transportation when residents arrive. The submitted plans for Malmo Quay appear to only show 18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block, woefully inadequate and guaranteed to put even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route 72 which runs along the Quayside. In addition, the proposed 73 Parking Spaces on Spillers Wharf are not actually part of this application. Even then, at best they won't be available for at least 3-4 years and will also have to service the 76 apartments potentially being built there. After many visits to the site I am aware there is a fully functioning and already overpressured car park being removed to create that site. Furthermore, public transport links are extremely limited to this area with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve a long walk up a large incline. This further promotes the use of cars within a central city zone and has the potential to increase air pollution issues that are already rife. Councillor Arlene Ainsely, Cabinet Member for Transport and Air Quality states that 'Addressing air quality issues in Newcastle is critically important. We must all recognise the damage that air pollution has on our residents (particularly the young people of Newcastle) and take urgent collective and individual action to address this public health issue'. How can councillors make claims that air quality is a critically important issue yet the City Council continue to favour developments that will increase car usage due to a lack of other transport options? Newcastle City Council repeatedly makes claims that they have 'declared a climate emergency' and are committed to achieving Net Zero by 2030 whilst improving the wellbeing of all of those in our city. However, favouring proposals like that of Malmo Quays which has the potential to intercept a major cycle route, in turn hindering active travel whilst also increasing car travel due to limited public transport links contradicts this entirely. Below are just some quotes regarding safe cycling, air quality and reduction of car use taken from the official Newcastle City Council, Net Zero 2030 Action Plan. This evidence illustrates the contradictions clearly. The council states that reaching these targets is a priority yet allows developments like Malmo Quays with all of its repercussions to create serious roadblocks. There is a clear opportunity in Newcastle to improve the health and wellbeing of residents by increasing the modal share of active travel through developing an attractive, safe and continuous walking and cycling network infrastructure. Newcastle City Council Planning Policy framework:UC6 states that priority will be given to cycling in the Urban Core where appropriate, cycle infrastructure will be developed by promoting cycle improvements and links to the surrounding area. City-wide planning policy (through the Development Allocations Plan) makes specific reference to the LCWIP (Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan) whereby its walking and cycling network plans will have an important role when having discussions with developers, and will help to secure funding for future walking and cycling schemes.We will implement a safe walking and cycling network to connect every school, to every park, to every district shopping centre, by implementing the key components of the LCW . The additional measures implemented – lane restrictions on the Tyne Bridge and approaching routes, and investment in public transport, walking and cycling – will also help to reduce car journeys and address air quality issues in the city. I understand that regeneration is seen by some as a way to contribute towards improving a city that many of us love, however I feel this development completely disregards an area so pivotal in creating vibrant, independent culture and preserving the rich history of our city. In addition, I feel that the development of Malmo Quays and its repercussions is completely contradictory to Newcastle City Councils' own priority targets on reaching Net Zero by 2030 and tackling the immediate and severe climate crisis. Thank you for taking the time to read my objection and considering the repercussions the development of Malmo Quays will have. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| This will not only be an eyesore on a lovely area but will ruin the atmosphere and culture that has been created in the ouseburn area down to the quayside. Places like Free Trade Inn, Kiln, Brinkburn etc have become local hubs and in building a tower that blocks this area will no doubt change this place, and not for the better. This is a totally unnecessary and frankly ugly design. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| The tower block in this development has no architectural merit, especially in the context of the quayside, and does not suit the topography of the area. The materials used do not fit in in the surrounding buildings, which include a number of listed buildings. Whilst more housing is needed, nationally as well as in Newcastle, there is a great deal of evidence that high-rise buildings are associated with poor community social cohesion and increased crime rates. As such, the focus on building new houses should be on providing housing in mid rise buildings of around 5 stories, and including much more provision for affordable and social housing than is proposed in this development. The proposed scheme does not adequately take into account transport links, provision of parking, or the effect that a new high-density residential building will have on surrounding businesses. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| Dear whomever it may concern, I am contacting you in regards to the Malmo Quay Development 2021/2404/01/EIA. My concern is in regards to the layout and density of the proposed building and its completely inappropriate scale to the existing topography of the surrounding area. Newcastle is known and praised throughout the country for its interesting and aesthetically pleasing architecture; after reviewing the plans for this particular development the design is completely unsuitable for Newcastle's Quayside. Taking into consideration the Listed buildings in the surrounding area which I will not bore you by listing as I trust you are fully aware of the cultural history of Ouseburn; the planned proposal height and stature of the building will cast shadows and impinge on the privacy of the residents and hospitality sector in Ouseburn. The issues listed above haven't even covered the long list of ecological and landscaping issues which I feel haven't been carefully considered given the outcome of the proposed plan. Please consider my concerns and others that I know have been submitted. Many thanks, Eve Kossmann, 1 Stannington Grove, Heaton, Newcastle Upon Tyne | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I would like to submit my objection to application 2021/2404/01/EIA. I believe the development of the site at Malmo Quay along the lines proposed would have a great negative impact on the local area surrounding. The Ouseburn area already faces significant over development issues which are affecting the historic character which the council should be protecting as part of the Lower Ouseburn Valley Conservation area. There is significant history in the valley, and while the development lies only just outside, the scale of the structure proposed would have a negative cultural impact as it would always be in view and take away from the existing urban village feel. The Hadrian's Wall path, which follows along the quayside around the proposed site, would also become largely a urban space and take away from the character of the valley. While the wall runs along a more northernly route along the A193, most visitors to the valley following it along the path experience the valley from the quayside vantage and no longer would be able to enjoy views of its historic built past with these new structures in the way. While development at Malmo is not a bad thing, the scope of the central 18 storey proposed structure should be significantly paired down so as to not break up the skyline of this district, which before was characterised by chimneys and factories. The historic built environment of the Ouseburn would be greatly affected and not for the good. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I would like to submit my objection to application 2021/2404/01/EIA. I believe the development of the site at Malmo Quay along the lines proposed would have a great negative impact on the local area surrounding. The Ouseburn area already faces significant over development issues which are affecting the historic character which the council should be protecting as part of the Lower Ouseburn Valley Conservation area. There is significant history in the valley, and while the development lies only just outside, the scale of the structure proposed would have a negative cultural impact as it would always be in view and take away from the existing urban village feel. The Hadrian's Wall path, which follows along the quayside around the proposed site, would also become largely a urban space and take away from the character of the valley. While the wall runs along a more northernly route along the A193, most visitors to the valley following it along the path experience the valley from the quayside vantage and no longer would be able to enjoy views of its historic built past with these new structures in the way. While development at Malmo is not a bad thing, the scope of the central 18 storey proposed structure should be significantly paired down so as to not break up the skyline of this district, which before was characterised by chimneys and factories. The historic built environment of the Ouseburn would be greatly affected and not for the good. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| This proposal is badly thought out and not even vaguely reasoned , it seems to be an attempt to recreate the Dunston staithes development ( terrible) in a prime location. Despite the awful 1980s developments which form a sterile no mans land between the Quayside and the ouseburn valley the Ouseburn has steadily clawed an increasing presence in the cultural and tourist lifeof this city . This proposal will be the nail in the coffin . Creating a wall of dormitory accomodation between this lively area and the Tyne. Also there are not enough facilities for an increase in involved residents. What this site needs are more studios , cafes, shops, galleries , in short destination proposals where everyone can come to be part of life in this city , in this neighbourhood and enjoy the views of the river and bridges . | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| We have a local business and strongly object to the Malmo development. The Ouseburn is a vibrant, creative and historic area- the local communities of Byker, Shieldfield and Walker are working class communities that have been continually overlooked by the development of private and student housing. The provision of private high rise flats will change our community for the worse- dampen the live entertainment of the local pubs and quite frankly stand empty after the owners rent them out as AirBnBs or fight over the provision of car parking. Please consider the character of our area, rather than the profit of developers. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| Going forward with the Malmo Quay Development would not be in the best interest of the Ouseburn or wider Newcastle community. Putting 76 more dwellings in this area and a carpark along side it will increase traffic dramatically. One of the many appealing aspects of the Ouseburn and quayside area is that it is very safe to walk round, the traffic flow is minimal to none, there are plenty of wide pavements to walk on, the walk from Ouseburn to the town centre is a delightful walk that i make many times a week. If Newcastle and Gateshead Council's are set on making the vision is "that by 2030 Gateshead and Newcastle will be a more prosperous, attractive and sustainable place to live" they should really consider where there are building these structures. Squeezing that many dwellings on that land will undoubtedly increase traffic to a point where the Ouseburn area will lose its charm to visitors and become hostile and unappealing to those who already live there. Placing a block tower, obstructing views from some of the most beloved venues in Newcastle, Free Trade Inn, Tyne Bar, as well as countless others would also irreparably impact their reputation as a go to venue for views of the tyne. I had a lovely time around New Year sitting with a friend in the window at Free Trade Inn watching the lasers from the tops of all the buildings, a couple were watching over our shoulder and after we finished our drinks we gave them our table. It was a lovely evening and one that wouldn't have been able to happen if that building was there. Having looked briefly at the plans, little has been said about the prices of the properties and i am unable to see if any will be social housing or part of any help to buy schemes. We do not need another expensive, obnoxious tower block that has units that can only be purchased by those who are already wealthy to then be rented out to locals. It would not improve the area of the lives of those currently living in the Ouseburn and the wider area. This plan will benefit very few people financially, and it will not be the current residents in Ouseburn nor its visitors. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| Strong objection. I'm a local business owner, running a creative agency. We are proud to be based on the cultural hub of the Ouseburn, in the Toffee Factory and strongly object to the proposed Malmo Quay tower block. The size and appearance of the tower block is totally at odds with anything in the Ouseburn area. The area has undergone a very successful regeneration and sympathetic developments such as Steenbergs Yard and the Maltings enhance and contribute to creating a fantastic place to live / work / visit. The area is packed with heritage and beautiful buildings like the Grade II Listed Ouseburn School, Sailors Bethal , Tyne Bar Public House, Toffee Factory and the Glasshouse Bridge. The tower block's design is not sympathetic at all to the design of the surrounding area and would be frankly an eye sore. An 18 storey building is just ridiculous and would completely dwarf anything else nearby. Secondly, the sheer size of the building would significantly block sunlight to our offices at Toffee Factory and the surrounding buildings. Finally the proposed 18 parking spaces is clearly inadequate for 62 apartments. Spillers car park is regularly full and on-street parking is limited in the Ouseburn, so where will all of the traffic go? Regards, Henry Coggin Vida Creative | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| The SCI report does not include the concerns about the height of the 18 storey building as a key message within the report conclusion despite it being raised as a concern by 3 councillors, Nick Kemp, Alistair Chisholm, and Victoria Dunn, Ouseburn Planning and Development Group, Mariners Wharf Residents, Free Trade Inn, St Anne’s and High Quays Residents. My husband and I are regular visitors to Ouseburn, and I am a former worker of four years in the nearby Byker neighbourhood. We wish to register our concern about the height of the 18 storey building. It is not in keeping with the otherwise excellent development of the Quayside and Ouseburn. We note that the developers have linked the need for this high rise block of flats to their ability to fund other development work on the site but question the sincerity of this and hope that this will be scrutinised with rigour. To put our objections into context we have never objected to the building of 900 homes on the wider Lower Callerton Site despite the fact that that we are significantly impacted. We strongly oppose the inclusion of the 18 storey building in the planning application as we believe it will have a negative impact on the character of Ouseburn and for us personally we anticipate it will significantly reduce our number of visits and use of Ouseburn businesses. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| The SCI report does not include the concerns about the height of the 18 storey building as a key message within the report conclusion despite it being raised as a concern by 3 councillors, Nick Kemp, Alistair Chisholm, and Victoria Dunn, Ouseburn Planning and Development Group, Mariners Wharf Residents, Free Trade Inn, St Anne’s and High Quays Residents. My husband and I are regular visitors to Ouseburn, and I am a former worker of four years in the nearby Byker neighbourhood. We wish to register our concern about the height of the 18 storey building. It is not in keeping with the otherwise excellent development of the Quayside and Ouseburn. We note that the developers have linked the need for this high rise block of flats to their ability to fund other development work on the site but question the sincerity of this and hope that this will be scrutinised with rigour. To put our objections into context we have never objected to the building of 900 homes on the wider Lower Callerton Site despite the fact that that we are significantly impacted. We strongly oppose the inclusion of the 18 storey building in the planning application as we believe it will have a negative impact on the character of Ouseburn and for us personally we anticipate it will significantly reduce our number of visits and use of Ouseburn businesses. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I would like to strongly object to this proposal based on the detrimental impact it will have on the environment, residents, local and wider community. Firstly, based off the proposed application this tower block and surrounding homes would greatly increase the amount of sewage pouring into the Tyne each year. Secondly, it would increase traffic and subsequently air pollution. Thirdly, an 18 storey high rise would greatly impact local businesses and residents who enjoy views of the Tyne currently. The design and height of the building is completely out of character for the area and would drastically change the Newcastle city skyline for the worse. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I would like to strongly object to this proposal based on the detrimental impact it will have on the environment, residents, local and wider community. Firstly, based off the proposed application this tower block and surrounding homes would greatly increase the amount of sewage pouring into the Tyne each year. Secondly, it would increase traffic and subsequently air pollution. Thirdly, an 18 storey high rise would greatly impact local businesses and residents who enjoy views of the Tyne currently. The design and height of the building is completely out of character for the area and would drastically change the Newcastle city skyline for the worse. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to the proposed development on the following grounds: 1. The scale and massing of the proposed tower block is not in keeping with the surrounding area. It will dominate the Quayside and Ouseburn. The Quayside has been developed in a structured and thoughtful manner over the last twenty five years, starting from the area opposite the Law Courts to the east. The proposed tower block does not fit in with any other building on the Quayside, as can be seen from the images that have been submitted with the application. Granting permission for this would destroy all the positive work that has been achieved in redeveloping the Quayside. Similarly, the end of the Ouseburn, downstream from Seven Stories and Ouseburn Farm has grown organically over the same period of time, with development taking place in keeping with the surrounding buildings and open spaces. The proposed tower block is disproportionate to the existing buildings in this area of the Ouseburn. 2. The proposed tower block with have a significant effect on the daylight and sunlight on surrounding public areas and existing residential buildings and business. It will cast a large shadow over all these areas and this is not acceptable. 3. The quality of the design of the proposed tower block is not in keeping with the industrial and historic nature of the buildings in the surrounding area. Again, this can be seen from the images that have been submitted with the application. In particular it does not fit in with the historic brick buildings of the Ouseburn School, the Hotel du Vin and the Sailor's Bethel. 4. I regularly exercise on the Quayside directly in the area of the proposed development. If 62 new apartments are built in the proposed location I believe this will have a significant impact on the number of cars in the area and this will increase the likelihood of accidents occurring as the roads and pavements in the area are narrow. This will be enhanced by the fact that only 18 car parking spaces are proposed as part of the development. Occupiers who do not have one of these spaces will be forced to park on the surrounding roads, again increasing the likelihood of accidents between both vehicles, vehicles and pedestrians and vehicles and cyclists, noting that the development is on the very popular cycle route 72. The additional vehicular traffic will also have a negative impact on the air quality in the area which will be detrimental to everyone who lives, works or spends leisure time in the area. For these reasons, the application should be rejected. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I strongly oppose the Malmo Quay building. For the following reasons: - The application does not meet the technical requirements expected of it to meet national planning policy or guidance The negative impact on the landscape, environment and residents in the surrounding Ouseburn area due to the following reasons; - The inevitable negative impact on the future of the Tyne Bar, an iconic bar and much loved cultural music venue (one of the reasons people love Ouseburn). Due to potential "noise" complaints from new residents, which could lead to the Council distributing an unfair Noise Abatement Notice, which could potentially put an end to all live music from the venue. The venue has and does host gigs from bands internationally and locally, which is the heart of culture and what makes Newcastle such an admired city. Additionally, there is also very strong evidence that Igloo have not made sufficient allowance for noise pollution from the Tyne Bar and surrounding Ouseburn venues or events, which could shut down cultural events. - The scale of building would be extremely out of place amongst existing buildings. Due to the scale, it will block out daylight, sunlight, and cause huge overshadowing for residents and those that use Quayside for recreation. Additionally it could affect the privacy of the surrounding already existing apartment buildings. - A new development should fit in with the current landscape. As the new structure wouldn't be inkeeping with historic industrial architecture of area Newcastle would run the risk of the attraction of the quayside and it's Architecure. Liverpool lost it’s UNESCO status due to the amount of new builds. - The Malmo Quay would negatively impact congestion and both sound and light pollution - issues that Newcastle already faces and should be changing, not making worse. Have the waste that would be created been considered? New residents would bring a higher volume of cars, which would make an already popular pedestrian/cyclist area more dangerous, due to additional vehicles in the area. The addition of vehicles would also add to the pollution of the river, the local area, and would impact wildlife. Has an environmental impact survey even been done? If you bear in mind the wildlife in that area. Especially the Kittiwakes - Newcastle/Gateshead Quayside has been the breeding site for Kittiwakes since the 1960s and have truly become a well-established part of the local and natural heritage in the area. - The landscape would be affected as the new build would be a loss of public amenity - this area is used for cycling, with the popular Cycle Hub nearby. And a very popular part of the Ouseburn trail. - The area should be made into a green space, it is a disgraceful use of land. This area should be invested in and developed in line with what exists in the area currently; a much loved and appreciated strong artisan and cultural area - the reason people love and visit Newcastle! It's one of the special areas of the city that makes it unique compared to other cities. Therefore I am asking what does the Malmo Quay essentially bring to the area? The negatives of this far outweigh any positives. I ask that you strongly consider all of the objections. This would have a huge negative impact on the city and the much loved and cherished Ouseburn area. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I wish to object to planning application 2021/2404/01/EIA (the proposed development of Malmo Quay) for the following reasons: FLOODING / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT It is widely agreed — not least following COP26 — that we are at a crucial tipping point in the climate crisis and radical steps must be taken to reduce our impact on the environment at a local and global level. Indeed, Environment Agency and Climate Central data tells us that the proposed development area will be below the annual flood level in just a few years’ time (see attached graphic). The environmental impact of this development will be huge, from manufacturing the materials required for the proposed buildings, to the preparation of the site and then the construction itself. The proposed development of Malmo Quay does not align with the environmental policies and targets laid down by the Government or Newcastle City Council itself, whether to the letter or in spirit. Furthermore, which insurance companies will underwrite the insurance requirements for these properties when they are known to be in an area soon at risk of flooding? POPULATION DENSITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE The proposed application does not support the fundamental infrastructural needs of new residents or the people who already live nearby who will be their neighbours. The development will cause a huge and disproportionate spike in population density which the area cannot serve. The infrastructure to Malmo Quay and the surrounding area is already struggling at the best of times when it comes to even the basic requirements of traffic management such as access and parking. Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses currently passing the site. Access to the two nearest metro stations involve long, steep gradients and are both over a kilometre away. HERITAGE The proposed development does not align with Newcastle City Council’s very own policies on preserving the heritage of the city and, most pertinently, the Ouseburn Valley which includes Malmo Quay. The Ouseburn Valley is an area well-known for its heritage. Indeed, the buildings that hug the valley and line the river tell the story of this area vital to the local community. The Glasshouse Bridge and barrage at the confluence of the Ouseburn and the Tyne currently form a ‘grand entrance’ to a place of significant cultural heritage to the city of Newcastle. The proposed development would not only completely change the face of that, but it would smother it as a direct result of the proposed quantity and height of the buildings. As just a few examples of the buildings/structures that would be directly affected: - Ouseburn School (Grade II Listed) - Sailors Bethel (Grade II Listed) - Tyne Bar Public House - Free Trade Inn Public House - Toffee Factory - Glasshouse Bridge DAYLIGHT, SUNLIGHT AND OVERSHADOWING The proposed high rise building will have a huge impact in terms of blocking sunlight and casting a shadow, including significant impact on existing businesses and residential properties including Free Trade Inn and Tyne Bar. THE CYCLE HUB AND THE NATIONAL CYCLE ROUTE I also strongly object to the proposed demolition of The Cycle Hub building. This is a perfectly workable and serviceable building which has served the community for decades and has a history not only of its own but one that ties in with the heritage of the area. It would be extremely wasteful to demolish this building both socially and ecologically. The proposed development will also negatively impact the flow and use of the National Cycle Route. PERSONAL NOTE On a personal note, I would like to convey that I do not believe this development is being made with any good intention towards the community or the city as a whole. I believe that it is being proposed for financial gain only. I have been extremely disheartened to learn that so many proposed properties are being crammed into Malmo Quay rather than being distributed more evenly along Spillers Wharf because, when it comes to property value, Malmo Quay has the coveted NE1 postcode and Spillers Wharf has the not-so-desirable NE6 postcode. This leaves a very bitter taste in the mouth and will not go down well when the wider public learn about it. Furthermore, it makes the motives of the proposed development feel extremely shallow and disingenuous. Many of the parties who are intending to profit from this development are not even connected to our city but are based hundreds of miles away. Once the current, distinctive and much-loved appearance of the Ouseburn Valley is gone, it will be gone forever and at what cost? Deals will have been done, boxes will have been ticked and the people of Newcastle are the ones who will have to live with the legacy of the decisions you made in these key moments of social and ecological need. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| This building would be detrimental to Newcastle’s cultural and creative quarter. For decades the Newcastle quayside was a poor area is desperate need of revitalisation. Now it is a beautiful, vibrant part of the city for people to relax and enjoy the finer cultural aspects of what our city has to offer. There are so many other suitable locations for housing along grey sites on the Tyne, why here!? With the ‘geordie shore’ binge drinking that has encompassed parts of the city it is imperative we preserve what fine entertainment locations we have left. Having been born and raised in the city I am immensely proud of my city, specifically the creative quarter that I have enjoyed for the last 20 years. I hope to enjoy it for another 20. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| As an NE6 resident living in the immediate nearby area I'd like to strongly object to the proposals. I feel the scale and massing of the building planned aren't appropriate and are hugely out of context to the immediate areas heritage assets such as the Sailor Bethel, Toffee Factory and Ouseburn School as well as the farm. I also have concerns about the size of the block in the proposal blocking sunlight due to it being disproportionately bigger than all other buildings in the immediate area. The construction of the block housing many residents requires further demand for parking spaces and will bring unnecessary pressure and congestion to the area with City Road that joins Walker Road that has very limited public transport options with only one bus which is the Go North East Q3 service that is limited after 7:20pm and no Metro station in the immediate area. Due to the lack of public transport and parking, this will result in more on street parking and congestion which will affect cyclists-due to part of this being a national cycle route and also the new changes to cycling on roads, causing potential dangerous situations. I also have concerns that the likelihood of the project housing such a number of residents will inevitably result in noise complaints regarding such nearby venues as The Tyne Bar (which is culturally significant, having a longstanding legacy of hosting live music) and Free Trade and Brinkburn pubs causing more problems in the area, affecting business and consequently driving people away from the area which is counterproductive. I strongly oppose this development and hope it is refused. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I am the owner of Flat 77, St Ann's Quay where the main views are directly towards the application site. The proposal includes an 18 storey tower which is totally out of character with the surrounding developments and is in direct conflict with the Tall Buildings Policy covering this area. The proposal is also in conflict with the Tyne Gorge Study. The proposed level of parking included is totally inadequate and this, coupled with the generally poor communication links in the area, which the proposal fails to address adequately, will exacerbate parking and transport issues in the area and beyond. I understand that the developer is claiming that there are financial challenges in developing this site but allowing a massive over development and over massing on the site is not the solution to this. Such constraints should be taken into account in the site value, not by overriding established planning policies and constraints. I therefore urger the coucnil to refuse planning permission for this ill considered proposal. Jason Living | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| The building will be an eyesore and ruin the beauty of the quayside being many stories higher than any existing buildings. It is not in keeping with the landscape and as not affordable housing does not comply with the government’s ‘levelling up’ | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| The building will be an eyesore and ruin the beauty of the quayside being many stories higher than any existing buildings. It is not in keeping with the landscape and as not affordable housing does not comply with the government’s ‘levelling up’ | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| Ouseburn is full of historic value and character. From the Victorian tunnels, toffee making, ship building, glassworks and beyond, this is an area to be appreciated, with each corner having its own story. Building an unspectacular multi storey complex suited to a city centre which blocks and deters from this would be a travesty. The area is appreciated by the public in their masses, as they walk and cycle into the city, or enjoy a leisurely drink. Limiting this area to the few who may live here would be damaging to the area and city on a whole. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| Although the proposal for the new Malmo Tower highlights modern attractive design as an isolated building, the imediate context should always be considered in this type of development. Sadly the structure does not weave seamlessly into the local context given the damages to the local urban texture. Ouseburn is an up and coming location for young families who want to escape the metropolis; the discussion surrounding local building heights is even noted in the application that states they "range from 1-6 storeys" thus placing a 18 storey tower understandably causes controversy. It is understood that the client wishes to maximise profit on the site through rent however the council must consider the damages in rental prices and business for the surrounding area whose views massively determine the value. I believe the project does not correspond to "good architecture" and would have a major impact on the future regeneration of Ouseburn. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| The proposed building is completely inappropriate for the surroundings. The Ouseburn is a beautiful area, full of history and this building would be a complete rejection of all the area stands for. It would stand in the way of one of the most iconic views from a most cherished pub- it seems a shameless and ugly venture that would serve no purpose to the community. The scale of the building is not in-keeping, nor is the design. The proposed parking leaves the potential for serious accessibility issues- both for vehicles and bikes. As a frequent visitor to the Ouseburn and quayside, I see no benefit to this structure. Please consider the views of the community- the Ouseburn is a special place in the North East and deserves to be treated with respect. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I am strongly opposed to this application. An 18 storey building as described will detract from the existing entrepreneurial, quirky ambience of the Ouseburn / Quayside area. This visually challenging building will obscure existing tourist / local attractions as well as spoil the existing scenic quayside attracting more traffic / air pollution. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| Object to the proposed planning application (2021/2404/01/EIA) of the Malmo Quay development - This will destroy the stunning view of our amazing city from the quayside and the building does not correspond with the current infrastructure. The Malmo Quay development is completely out of tune with the rest of Ouseburn Valley, the sight along the tyne attracts locals and tourists alike, the economic impact this would have on local tourism within Newcastle would be detrimental. - Parking Provision - increased traffic flow to an already under-equipped area of Newcastle to handle such a change would be drastic to current residents and visitors to the area, also affecting the local economy. -The Ouseburn is a small section of our city with deep historical heritage, there are some places where gentrification is not needed. Newcastle Council, do the right thing... | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| Object to the proposed planning application (2021/2404/01/EIA) of the Malmo Quay development - This will destroy the stunning view of our amazing city from the quayside and the building does not correspond with the current infrastructure. The Malmo Quay development is completely out of tune with the rest of Ouseburn Valley, the sight along the tyne attracts locals and tourists alike, the economic impact this would have on local tourism within Newcastle would be detrimental. - Parking Provision - increased traffic flow to an already under-equipped area of Newcastle to handle such a change would be drastic to current residents and visitors to the area, also affecting the local economy. -The Ouseburn is a small section of our city with deep historical heritage, there are some places where gentrification is not needed. Newcastle Council, do the right thing... | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| Object to the proposed planning application (2021/2404/01/EIA) of the Malmo Quay development - This will destroy the stunning view of our amazing city from the quayside and the building does not correspond with the current infrastructure. The Malmo Quay development is completely out of tune with the rest of Ouseburn Valley, the sight along the tyne attracts locals and tourists alike, the economic impact this would have on local tourism within Newcastle would be detrimental. - Parking Provision - increased traffic flow to an already under-equipped area of Newcastle to handle such a change would be drastic to current residents and visitors to the area, also affecting the local economy. -The Ouseburn is a small section of our city with deep historical heritage, there are some places where gentrification is not needed. Newcastle Council, do the right thing... | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| Object to the proposed planning application (2021/2404/01/EIA) of the Malmo Quay development - This will destroy the stunning view of our amazing city from the quayside and the building does not correspond with the current infrastructure. The Malmo Quay development is completely out of tune with the rest of Ouseburn Valley, the sight along the tyne attracts locals and tourists alike, the economic impact this would have on local tourism within Newcastle would be detrimental. - Parking Provision - increased traffic flow to an already under-equipped area of Newcastle to handle such a change would be drastic to current residents and visitors to the area, also affecting the local economy. -The Ouseburn is a small section of our city with deep historical heritage, there are some places where gentrification is not needed. Newcastle Council, do the right thing... | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I strongly object to the plans currently put forward by the developer. The tower block is far too tall for the quayside. It is a monstrosity that is not in keeping with either the historic character of the area or more sympathetic developments like The Malings and Lower Steenbergs. If allowed this would be an eye-sore and detrimental to the entire area and ongoing regeneration of the Lower Ouseburn Valley. Furthermore, the impact of a development of this scale on local businesses and residents does not seem to have been considered. The area is poorly served by public transport. The stated frequency of the Q3 bus service is misleading, the evening service is every 30 minutes (not the implied 15 minutes) [Table 2.1, document RPTC-TC-03]. There is already has minimal car parking available in the area. This will be further reduced with the development on the Spillars site. Local businesses going to suffer because staff and customers will have nowhere to park. Residents will suffer as streets and car parks are inundated by the residents (and guests, and workers) of the Malmo and Spillars developments looking to find parking because the provision for resident parking in these plans is woefully inadequate. Given that the sale of new diesel and petrol cars is to be banned in 2030, I would have expected that the application to be more positive on the provision of EV charging points. Instead, the application simply states that “future applications” will be required to ensure that all bays are capable of EV charging. The provision of EV charging in all bays is something that needs to be guaranteed for this development. While the application proudly presents the provision of cycle stores and access to the cycle path network as a positive, it fails to take into consideration the impact of extra traffic on the roads shared by cyclists. The tragic death of a cyclist, Laura Duncalfe who passed away after being injured in a collision involving a car on St Lawrence Road (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-60127621), needs to be recognised and considered in relation to the additional traffic that this development will create on these shared routes. The Lower Ouseburn Valley is a unique Newcastle asset. It’s an artistic, historic, and creative hub second to none, that is seriously threatened by the impact of the sheer size of this development. The developers are piggy backing onto this asset for the sake of profit and are not considering that this will destroy the character of the valley that the regeneration has sought to preserve for the past 30 years. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I strongly object to the plans currently put forward by the developer. The tower block is far too tall for the quayside. It is a monstrosity that is not in keeping with either the historic character of the area or more sympathetic developments like The Malings and Lower Steenbergs. If allowed this would be an eye-sore and detrimental to the entire area and ongoing regeneration of the Lower Ouseburn Valley. Furthermore, the impact of a development of this scale on local businesses and residents does not seem to have been considered. The area is poorly served by public transport. The stated frequency of the Q3 bus service is misleading, the evening service is every 30 minutes (not the implied 15 minutes) [Table 2.1, document RPTC-TC-03]. There is already has minimal car parking available in the area. This will be further reduced with the development on the Spillars site. Local businesses going to suffer because staff and customers will have nowhere to park. Residents will suffer as streets and car parks are inundated by the residents (and guests, and workers) of the Malmo and Spillars developments looking to find parking because the provision for resident parking in these plans is woefully inadequate. Given that the sale of new diesel and petrol cars is to be banned in 2030, I would have expected that the application to be more positive on the provision of EV charging points. Instead, the application simply states that “future applications” will be required to ensure that all bays are capable of EV charging. The provision of EV charging in all bays is something that needs to be guaranteed for this development. While the application proudly presents the provision of cycle stores and access to the cycle path network as a positive, it fails to take into consideration the impact of extra traffic on the roads shared by cyclists. The tragic death of a cyclist, Laura Duncalfe who passed away after being injured in a collision involving a car on St Lawrence Road (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-60127621), needs to be recognised and considered in relation to the additional traffic that this development will create on these shared routes. The Lower Ouseburn Valley is a unique Newcastle asset. It’s an artistic, historic, and creative hub second to none, that is seriously threatened by the impact of the sheer size of this development. The developers are piggy backing onto this asset for the sake of profit and are not considering that this will destroy the character of the valley that the regeneration has sought to preserve for the past 30 years. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to this application. I am a local resident and not a planning expert so I am sure others will be able to make comments that relate more accurately to planning issues that the committee must consider. But this plan is so odd! Despite the many thousands of fine words in the planning documents, it is impossible to get past the impression that it is a carefully designed scheme with an added, exceedingly unwelcome tower block. The size and appearance of the tower is completely at odds with the rest of the design and of the surrounding area. It's a design disaster that would be a blot on the character of the Tyne gorge. Please insist that overall scale and height of the scheme maintains and adds to the existing pattern of development along Quayside. As a city we have encouragingly declared a climate emergency. Our council is actively pursuing net zero city status (thank you) and puts sustainability high among its goals. Building high rise works against all of these aspirations. The embodied carbon of high rise buildings is huge because of the need for larger foundations and the increased use of concrete and steel in the construction. This is compounded by the additional equipment and components that are needed for high rise living: potable water tanks and pumps; lifts; firefighting water tanks and pumps; smoke extract fans; back up diesel generators. This is an energy disaster which cannot be 'written down' over the lifespan of the building as we must drastically cut our carbon emissions in the next decade. Simply put, we cannot build high if we are serious about carbon emissions. You claim to be serious. The tower has to removed from the plan. I also wish to request that the environmental ambition of the remainder of the application is completely rethought. How about factory made timber frames arriving by boat to save on lorry journeys? Why aren't we specifying Passive House levels of insulation, air tightness, and heat demand? The cost premium is now minimal where carefully designed and will pay back many times over in lower carbon emissions, running costs, building longevity, and occupant health. The proposal to use direct electric heating should be thrown out. It is not good enough that future owners will end up using three to four times as much electricity for space and water heating as they would do if heat pumps were specified. There is the space for ground source heat pump boreholes; there is the River Tyne for potential river water heat pumps; designs can be tailored for individual air source heat pumps. Come on Igloo, you are way better than electric panel radiators. It's so short sighted too as the absence of a water based heating system will make it all but impossible to retrofit with more efficient heat pump based systems or connection to a future district heating system. Transport aspirations are talked up but are in reality low. Cycle infrastructure is poor despite what is said in the documents. The council needs to take the opportunity of such a development to fund segregated cycle ways that connect (or will connect) with a city wide network. Quayside is now too busy for a shared pedestrian and cycle use and this development will make it more so. Car ownership should be discouraged by shared electric bicycles, cargo bikes, and maybe a car. This should be built into the development from the start rather than left to future residents to fund and organise. Where is the environmental aspiration that would match Council's stated aims? Malmo Quay and Spillers Quay have the potential to be assets to Ouseburn but not like this. Please go low rise, 'gentle density'; efficient timber frame building methods; higher levels of energy conservation; predominately car free with built in ease of active transport choices. We need true Lean, Clean, and Green not steel and reinforced concrete high rise. I object to this application. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| As the owners of a local business based in the listed Sailors Bethel, we are affected by the proposals and would like to object to planning application 2021/2404/01/EIA. Our objections can be broadly grouped into the harming effect on the character and appearance of the area that would be caused by the overdevelopment of Malmo Quay in particular. The proposed development, by reason of its scale, massing, footprint and design of the Tower Block element specifically, would result in significant harm to the visual appearance and character of the local area (the Lower Ouseburn Conservation Area and The Tyne Gorge character area) and would fail to deliver a high-quality building contrary to the NPPF and Newcastle City Planning policies UC12 and UC13 of the Core Strategy & Urban Core Plan and policy DM20 of the Development and Allocations Plan. The proposed development, by reason of its impact on the setting of designated heritage assets, particularly the Sailors Bethel in views from the east, and the failure of the scheme to deliver adequate public benefits which outweigh the harm, would be contrary to the NPPF, Newcastle City Planning Policy UC14 of the Core Strategy & Urban Core Plan and policies DM15 and DM16 of the Development and Allocations Plan. In addition we also object to the loss of light and overshadowing to the Sailors Bethel, traffic impact, safety and noise. We hope the applicant withdraws the hybrid application and comes forward with separate applications for each site (separating Malmo and Spillers sites) which develop new proposals capable of providing benefits to the local population and support the future viability of businesses in the area whilst delivering a viable development. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| To the planners and council members, Please find my concerns and objections to the proposals to develop Malmo Quay with particular note of the tower block and to a lesser extent the plans to use the space for private homes as opposed to public space. I have compiled a list with comments of sections from Newcastle Councils own documents pertaining to planning permission and the governments advisory statements on the same matter. Points from Newcastle Councils “Planning for the future pt.16.72” • "The River Tyne and the Lower Ouseburn are parts of the Strategic Green Infrastructure Network and the Lower Ouseburn is also an important wildlife corridor which links the River Tyne to Heaton Park and Jesmond Dene." – disruption during building, fallow land is great for wildlife, especially if combined with a park. • "Promoting leisure, culture and tourism that complements the existing diverse mix of uses." - this project does not fulfil this criteria. • "Promoting the Ouseburn as a home for arts, cultural, media uses, the creative sector and small-to-medium scale development that sustains and enhances the existing fine grain character." – this project does not fulfil this criteria. • "Promoting the re-use of vacant historic buildings to maintain the quality of the historic environment and ensure the local distinctiveness of the area is retained." - this project does not fulfil this criteria. • "Improving pedestrian and cycling access by strengthening connections to the City Centre, Byker and Gateshead." – this project does not fulfil this criteria. • "Promoting river based leisure uses to increase activity on the River Tyne and the Ouseburn River." – this project does not fulfil this criteria, especially if they build on spillers quay too where they will disenfranchise the fishing boats moored there. Instead why not build more moorings adjacent to a park with pop up spaces for selling fish? Or for going on trips up and down the river. Making a provision for the cycle hub in the new build is a cynical ploy by the company to make more money. If PfP Igloo maintain in charge of the spaces I.e. are leaseholders then what’s to say they don’t end up pricing the cycle hub out? • "16.79 National Cycle Route 72 runs through the south of the Ouseburn and it is a key pedestrian and cycle link to the Quayside. It is part of the ‘Coast to Coast’ and Hadrian’s Cycle Way routes and is one of the most popular routes in the country with approximately 15,000 cycle trips a year. The provision of a cycle route along Ford Street and Foundry Lane, supported by the proposals at Byker Bank and Cut Bank, will link Hadrian’s Way with the existing route along Byker Bridge" – this project does not fulfil this criteria. • "16.81 The Quayside and Ouseburn’s built environment is defined by distinctive buildings many of which are historic, of different sizes and orientations. This creates a unique area and it is important that development respects the topography of the Gorge and sustains and enhances the historic character of the Quayside and Ouseburn." – this development does not flow at all, it completely contradicts the current flow of the quayside developments. The valley side at the moment represents a sweeping but stepped sloping down towards the Ouseburn mouth. From the Lime square apartments passed the Sailors Bethel (a heritage site that will be obstructed from all natural morning light if this development goes ahead) down to the William Coulson statue, finally settling on Malmo quay. This development is not recognise the local topography in the slightest. • "16.82 Variety in the scale and footprint of buildings are key elements that contribute to the Lower Ouseburn Valley Conservation Area’s character and appearance and development must enhance and reveal the significance of the historic urban grain. The topography of the Valley is a key characteristic of the area and this will determine the appropriate scale and height of buildings." – variety and scale are absolutely fine to have but as above in 16.81 the variety is not exciting and the scale is completely out of turn. • "16.83 The River Tyne and the Ouseburn River are the defining features of the Sub-Area. The completion of the barrage in the Ouseburn and improvements to the quay wall on the Quayside has enabled the promotion of leisure and recreation activities on both rivers. Developing access to the rivers edge will help to increase activity which is important for the Sub-Area’s vitality" – turning currently openly accessible land into a tower block and some houses does not help achieve this. • "16.84 Improvements to the public realm have been vital to the Quayside’s renaissance. The area was transformed by the creation of high quality public realm along the edge of the River Tyne together with the provision of new spaces as part of developments. Most recently the NE1 Business Improvement District, has provided a number of temporary spaces such as the Quayside Beach. Improvements to the public spaces in the Ouseburn include the Ouseburn Village Green and new footpaths and associated landscaping improvements along the east side of the river. This route forms a continuous link along the East Bank to the Toffee factory and the Village Green." – blocked by soon to be private land • "16.85 The River Tyne and Ouseburn River are key parts of the Strategic Green Infrastructure Network and host to a range of biodiversity. The Tyne River Mudflats are valuable habitats and designated as a Site of Nature Conservation Importance. The Lower Ouseburn Valley is an important wildlife habitat and its attributes make it a unique urban environment. Improvements to the river’s edge will assist in reinforcing the Lower Ouseburn as Newcastle’s most significant wildlife corridor." – don’t develop the land for private ownership, make it into a semi-reclaimed park with pop up shops for everyone to enjoy • "16.87 Development will be expected to make provision for green infrastructure and/or public space. The extent of the provision will be determined on a site by site basis and will range from the inclusion of planting as part of the development to the creation of a new public space. The list of sites included in the policy is not an exhaustive list and as development opportunities arise further sites will be identified. Although the priority for the Ouseburn is to improve existing spaces, there is potential to provide a range of new spaces that will assist in creating a lively and vibrant urban neighbourhood. As part of the redevelopment of Malmo Quay a new public space will be located at the mouth of the Ouseburn. There is potential to create a series of linked small spaces along the riverside which would create a high quality route from the mouth of the Ouseburn to the central area." – taking an already excellent and large green space, filling it with concrete ad creating pollution in the process to replace it with a smaller green space that can only be enjoyed by a few is a real cognitive jump. • "16.89 The Ouseburn River can only accept a limited amount of surface water run off before there is an increased risk of fluvial flooding. Developments will be expected to control, separate and minimise surface water run off and include mitigation measures such as SuDS. Once the Ouseburn River threshold for surface water run off has been reached, developers will be required to manage surface water on site or seek other solutions to surface water management." – what plans do Pfp Igloo have for dealing with the decreased groundwater flow due to them tarmacking what is currently a soil covered (and therefore more permeable to groundwater flow) area? From National Planning Policy Framework • "130. Planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments: a) will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development." - what is PfP Igloo’s longterm plan for maintaining the site? Does not currently provide any quality to the area, only detracts. • "b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping." - failed on all 3 accounts • "c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities)." - appropriate innovation is great, the Malings? Great. Steenbergs Yard also a nice development. This, not great by any stretch. • "e) optimise the potential of the site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks." - minimal effort attempt to provide a token green space after destroying a much bigger one. • "f) create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users49; and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience – look at how many objections you have to this development, look at how many of them suggest a park for everyone to enjoy… there’s your answer to what the site should be. Currently the Ouseburn area is a happy place to live and work for many, the view and the open space is one of the prime reasons for the blessing to mental health that is the Ouseburn valley. This development seeks to take those views and open spaces from thousands upon thousands of people and give them to a select few for a profit. They will enrich a few and themselves at the cost of thousands. • "131. Trees make an important contribution to the character and quality of urban environments, and can also help mitigate and adapt to climate change. Planning policies and decisions should ensure that new streets are tree-lined, that opportunities are taken to incorporate trees elsewhere in developments (such as parks and community orchards), that appropriate measures are in place to secure the long-term maintenance of newly-planted trees." – there is not enough green space accounted for in this projects design, especially considering it is replacing current greenspace. Instead why not keep the space as a green area, not concrete. • "134. Development that is not well designed should be refused, especially where it fails to reflect local design policies and government guidance on designs." – I could’ve saved 2000 words by just posting this one single point. • "136. The quality and character of places can suffer when advertisements are poorly sited and designed." – You can stick a pin in this one for the “why-eye” • "159. Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk (whether existing or future). Where development is necessary in such areas, the development should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere." – what is the lifetime as expected by PfP Igloo? - Within 50 years we could be looking at 2m of sea level rise. • "174. Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: a) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils (in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan)." - this is a valued landscape. • "d) minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures." - currently the area is home to urban foxes, otters, swans and a whole variety of wading birds and wildfowl. The current fallow land has been seen to be a place of congregation for many of these species. The malmo development would not minimise impact and certainly wouldn’t provide a net gain for biodiversity. • "189. Heritage assets range from sites and buildings of local historic value to those of the highest significance, such as World Heritage Sites which are internationally recognised to be of Outstanding Universal Value. These assets are an irreplaceable resource, and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations." – the view is heritage, the view is iconic. The space should be made into something that everyone can enjoy and where everyone can enjoy the literal space it provides. They can build a tower in the city centre with the rest of them. • "190. Plans should set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. This strategy should take into account: a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; b) the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that conservation of the historic environment can bring; c) the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness; and d) opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to the character of a place." –This is a working class area and that heritage should be appreciated. The only reason a company like this can come in and brazenly think this tower and this development “draw on the contribution made by the historic environment” is ridiculous. Hard work built the quayside and now they want to ride on it’s coattails. To go ahead with this development would be clearly in breach of so many of the councils own rules on planning permissions. I am not against new developments by any stretch, however you cannot go against rules you yourselves have set. They are there for very good reason and making a profit for PfP Igloo is not one of those reasons. The council would do well to note the objections noted here in this planning application. These are not a disgruntled "anti-progress" cadre but rather 1000's of local people who live, work, rest and play in this area and rely upon it to serve all those 4 criteria. This development would be simply a case of enriching a few at the cost of many and should not go ahead unchanged. Regards. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| To the planners and council members, Please find my concerns and objections to the proposals to develop Malmo Quay with particular note of the tower block and to a lesser extent the plans to use the space for private homes as opposed to public space. I have compiled a list with comments of sections from Newcastle Councils own documents pertaining to planning permission and the governments advisory statements on the same matter. Points from Newcastle Councils “Planning for the future pt.16.72” • "The River Tyne and the Lower Ouseburn are parts of the Strategic Green Infrastructure Network and the Lower Ouseburn is also an important wildlife corridor which links the River Tyne to Heaton Park and Jesmond Dene." – disruption during building, fallow land is great for wildlife, especially if combined with a park. • "Promoting leisure, culture and tourism that complements the existing diverse mix of uses." - this project does not fulfil this criteria. • "Promoting the Ouseburn as a home for arts, cultural, media uses, the creative sector and small-to-medium scale development that sustains and enhances the existing fine grain character." – this project does not fulfil this criteria. • "Promoting the re-use of vacant historic buildings to maintain the quality of the historic environment and ensure the local distinctiveness of the area is retained." - this project does not fulfil this criteria. • "Improving pedestrian and cycling access by strengthening connections to the City Centre, Byker and Gateshead." – this project does not fulfil this criteria. • "Promoting river based leisure uses to increase activity on the River Tyne and the Ouseburn River." – this project does not fulfil this criteria, especially if they build on spillers quay too where they will disenfranchise the fishing boats moored there. Instead why not build more moorings adjacent to a park with pop up spaces for selling fish? Or for going on trips up and down the river. Making a provision for the cycle hub in the new build is a cynical ploy by the company to make more money. If PfP Igloo maintain in charge of the spaces I.e. are leaseholders then what’s to say they don’t end up pricing the cycle hub out? • "16.79 National Cycle Route 72 runs through the south of the Ouseburn and it is a key pedestrian and cycle link to the Quayside. It is part of the ‘Coast to Coast’ and Hadrian’s Cycle Way routes and is one of the most popular routes in the country with approximately 15,000 cycle trips a year. The provision of a cycle route along Ford Street and Foundry Lane, supported by the proposals at Byker Bank and Cut Bank, will link Hadrian’s Way with the existing route along Byker Bridge" – this project does not fulfil this criteria. • "16.81 The Quayside and Ouseburn’s built environment is defined by distinctive buildings many of which are historic, of different sizes and orientations. This creates a unique area and it is important that development respects the topography of the Gorge and sustains and enhances the historic character of the Quayside and Ouseburn." – this development does not flow at all, it completely contradicts the current flow of the quayside developments. The valley side at the moment represents a sweeping but stepped sloping down towards the Ouseburn mouth. From the Lime square apartments passed the Sailors Bethel (a heritage site that will be obstructed from all natural morning light if this development goes ahead) down to the William Coulson statue, finally settling on Malmo quay. This development is not recognise the local topography in the slightest. • "16.82 Variety in the scale and footprint of buildings are key elements that contribute to the Lower Ouseburn Valley Conservation Area’s character and appearance and development must enhance and reveal the significance of the historic urban grain. The topography of the Valley is a key characteristic of the area and this will determine the appropriate scale and height of buildings." – variety and scale are absolutely fine to have but as above in 16.81 the variety is not exciting and the scale is completely out of turn. • "16.83 The River Tyne and the Ouseburn River are the defining features of the Sub-Area. The completion of the barrage in the Ouseburn and improvements to the quay wall on the Quayside has enabled the promotion of leisure and recreation activities on both rivers. Developing access to the rivers edge will help to increase activity which is important for the Sub-Area’s vitality" – turning currently openly accessible land into a tower block and some houses does not help achieve this. • "16.84 Improvements to the public realm have been vital to the Quayside’s renaissance. The area was transformed by the creation of high quality public realm along the edge of the River Tyne together with the provision of new spaces as part of developments. Most recently the NE1 Business Improvement District, has provided a number of temporary spaces such as the Quayside Beach. Improvements to the public spaces in the Ouseburn include the Ouseburn Village Green and new footpaths and associated landscaping improvements along the east side of the river. This route forms a continuous link along the East Bank to the Toffee factory and the Village Green." – blocked by soon to be private land • "16.85 The River Tyne and Ouseburn River are key parts of the Strategic Green Infrastructure Network and host to a range of biodiversity. The Tyne River Mudflats are valuable habitats and designated as a Site of Nature Conservation Importance. The Lower Ouseburn Valley is an important wildlife habitat and its attributes make it a unique urban environment. Improvements to the river’s edge will assist in reinforcing the Lower Ouseburn as Newcastle’s most significant wildlife corridor." – don’t develop the land for private ownership, make it into a semi-reclaimed park with pop up shops for everyone to enjoy • "16.87 Development will be expected to make provision for green infrastructure and/or public space. The extent of the provision will be determined on a site by site basis and will range from the inclusion of planting as part of the development to the creation of a new public space. The list of sites included in the policy is not an exhaustive list and as development opportunities arise further sites will be identified. Although the priority for the Ouseburn is to improve existing spaces, there is potential to provide a range of new spaces that will assist in creating a lively and vibrant urban neighbourhood. As part of the redevelopment of Malmo Quay a new public space will be located at the mouth of the Ouseburn. There is potential to create a series of linked small spaces along the riverside which would create a high quality route from the mouth of the Ouseburn to the central area." – taking an already excellent and large green space, filling it with concrete ad creating pollution in the process to replace it with a smaller green space that can only be enjoyed by a few is a real cognitive jump. • "16.89 The Ouseburn River can only accept a limited amount of surface water run off before there is an increased risk of fluvial flooding. Developments will be expected to control, separate and minimise surface water run off and include mitigation measures such as SuDS. Once the Ouseburn River threshold for surface water run off has been reached, developers will be required to manage surface water on site or seek other solutions to surface water management." – what plans do Pfp Igloo have for dealing with the decreased groundwater flow due to them tarmacking what is currently a soil covered (and therefore more permeable to groundwater flow) area? From National Planning Policy Framework • "130. Planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments: a) will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development." - what is PfP Igloo’s longterm plan for maintaining the site? Does not currently provide any quality to the area, only detracts. • "b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping." - failed on all 3 accounts • "c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities)." - appropriate innovation is great, the Malings? Great. Steenbergs Yard also a nice development. This, not great by any stretch. • "e) optimise the potential of the site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks." - minimal effort attempt to provide a token green space after destroying a much bigger one. • "f) create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users49; and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience – look at how many objections you have to this development, look at how many of them suggest a park for everyone to enjoy… there’s your answer to what the site should be. Currently the Ouseburn area is a happy place to live and work for many, the view and the open space is one of the prime reasons for the blessing to mental health that is the Ouseburn valley. This development seeks to take those views and open spaces from thousands upon thousands of people and give them to a select few for a profit. They will enrich a few and themselves at the cost of thousands. • "131. Trees make an important contribution to the character and quality of urban environments, and can also help mitigate and adapt to climate change. Planning policies and decisions should ensure that new streets are tree-lined, that opportunities are taken to incorporate trees elsewhere in developments (such as parks and community orchards), that appropriate measures are in place to secure the long-term maintenance of newly-planted trees." – there is not enough green space accounted for in this projects design, especially considering it is replacing current greenspace. Instead why not keep the space as a green area, not concrete. • "134. Development that is not well designed should be refused, especially where it fails to reflect local design policies and government guidance on designs." – I could’ve saved 2000 words by just posting this one single point. • "136. The quality and character of places can suffer when advertisements are poorly sited and designed." – You can stick a pin in this one for the “why-eye” • "159. Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk (whether existing or future). Where development is necessary in such areas, the development should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere." – what is the lifetime as expected by PfP Igloo? - Within 50 years we could be looking at 2m of sea level rise. • "174. Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: a) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils (in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan)." - this is a valued landscape. • "d) minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures." - currently the area is home to urban foxes, otters, swans and a whole variety of wading birds and wildfowl. The current fallow land has been seen to be a place of congregation for many of these species. The malmo development would not minimise impact and certainly wouldn’t provide a net gain for biodiversity. • "189. Heritage assets range from sites and buildings of local historic value to those of the highest significance, such as World Heritage Sites which are internationally recognised to be of Outstanding Universal Value. These assets are an irreplaceable resource, and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations." – the view is heritage, the view is iconic. The space should be made into something that everyone can enjoy and where everyone can enjoy the literal space it provides. They can build a tower in the city centre with the rest of them. • "190. Plans should set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. This strategy should take into account: a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; b) the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that conservation of the historic environment can bring; c) the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness; and d) opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to the character of a place." –This is a working class area and that heritage should be appreciated. The only reason a company like this can come in and brazenly think this tower and this development “draw on the contribution made by the historic environment” is ridiculous. Hard work built the quayside and now they want to ride on it’s coattails. To go ahead with this development would be clearly in breach of so many of the councils own rules on planning permissions. I am not against new developments by any stretch, however you cannot go against rules you yourselves have set. They are there for very good reason and making a profit for PfP Igloo is not one of those reasons. The council would do well to note the objections noted here in this planning application. These are not a disgruntled "anti-progress" cadre but rather 1000's of local people who live, work, rest and play in this area and rely upon it to serve all those 4 criteria. This development would be simply a case of enriching a few at the cost of many and should not go ahead unchanged. Regards. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I do believe this development in its current form is a missed opportunity, an opportunity to produce a truly amazing development that really adds something to the current culture and future heritage of Newcastle and its people. The scale and massing of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for this location. The quality of design has very little merit and does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. Indeed the massing of the overall development will dominate many views from many angles from within the Ouseburn valley without adding any real value and it will transform negatively the very nature of the Ouseburn. We can have better – and the people of the Ouseburn the East End and Newcastle deserve a better scheme. If this goes ahead, it will be nothing short of criminal – shameful and negligent. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| The proposed development will adversely affect neighbouring residents and businesses alike by blocking sunlight for all, taking parking from the existing 'pool' of parking opportunities and adding very little. The proposed building is out of keeping with everything around it - some of which have great historical significance. I ask that this development is not approved. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to this building being built due to the size and the sheer ugliness of the building. It will destroy the beauty of the quayside and the views that we all enjoy living in the area. Bigger is not better!! I think if there is a need to build there then a more appropriate attractive building could be built instead of this eyesore. It will totally ruin the area if this is built and along with the wheel proposal it's all totally absurd. There isn't enough access for traffic and footfall for both these plans. It will make the whole environment unsafe and overcrowded. Absolutely crazy if this goes ahead. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| It is for the following reasons that I strongly object to the above proposal of the Malmo Quay Tower block. Firstly, the overpowering size, layout and density of this proposed development is not in keeping with the topography of the general area. Ouseburn is home to several listed buildings including Sailors Bethal Chapel (built in 1875), the Toffee Factory (1878) and the Tyne Bar Public House (1904). These vastly important buildings hold such character and are at the heart of Newcastle’s history, so to place said tower block in the midst of this would be highly inappropriate. Finally, the enormity of the proposed tower block building would inevitably have huge impact in regard to blocking sunlight and overshadow. This would have detrimental effect on residential properties (Mariners Wharf, Malings, Steenberg Yard and City Peaks) and businesses with gardens (the Free Trade Inn and the Tyne Bar). | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| 2021/2404/01/EIA - Malmo Quay Development Comment This submission is a comment on the proposed Malmo Quay development by PFP Igloo. I, and many others in the local area and beyond, have a number of concerns about the prospect of the development. While I understand the need for progression, regeneration and development, the proposed 18-storey tower block would irreparably damage the Ouseburn area and have consequences reaching across the East End of Newcastle. In terms of scale and suitability, an eighteen storey tower block does not fit well with the current surroundings of the Ouseburn area, particularly that close to the Tyne. The area makes use of historic and ex-industrial buildings in a way that is in-keeping with their surroundings, and where new building has taken place it works, for the most part, well with the buildings that already occupied the area (for example The Malings’ eco-friendly, low energy homes). Having seen images and plans of the proposed building, this does not respect the historic and interesting nature of the Ouseburn area. The scale of the proposed tower block would overshadow the rest of the area (literally as well as figuratively) and disrupt the local area. Such a large building would cause significant impact to residential buildings and business, blocking access to open skies and good weather for those at The Free Trade Inn, The Tyne Bar, The Malings, Mariners Wharf and more. The area is beloved by locals and those from further afield, especially in the warmer weather, and the potential losses in the local area, caused by a tower block casting a shadow over this area, should not be overlooked. The Malmo Quay development would introduce another 62 apartments to an area that was not designed as a residential area. There has already been significant residential development as part of regeneration efforts, and this trajectory is not sustainable. The Ouseburn is not well serviced by public transport, with only the QuayLink bus service currently visiting the area, and Metro stations a considerable distance away. This would encourage use of personal vehicles as it is not a practical area to ask people to cycle or walk from due to the inclines that separate the riverside from the rest of the city. The area is currently a peaceful and relatively car-free area, with good air quality. This knock-on effect goes against Section 9 Paragraphs 104-113 of the National Planning Policy Framework. In addition, the plans only show 18 parking spaces to serve these homes and would encourage on-street parking in an already difficult to access area. Further to previous points made about the permanent effect on the local area, it is worth noting that the Ouseburn area has been under some form of construction for a while already. The construction of the Malmo Quay block would continue this disruption. Construction necessitates heavy machinery, noise and construction traffic. As previously mentioned, the Ouseburn area is regarded as a peaceful and safe area for all ages, and continued construction in the area would have a sustained effect on local businesses due to the decrease of visitors to the area. Please accept these comments as an objection to the development. I hope you will take on board these points, as well as those I am sure have been made by many others, and not allow our historic local area to be affected in this way. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I would like to object to Application 2021/2404/01/EIA (the 'Malmo Quay' development). As a Newcastle resident who regularly frequents Ouseburn for its unique atmosphere and bubble away from the city centre, I have strong concerns in relation to the proposed development. The plans submitted do not account for adequate parking. This area has limited public transport links and with a friend who lives in mariner's wharf I can say that the current parking options could not deal with any further residents plus visitors to the area, fighting for parking space. The design and appearance of the building is an eyesore. It looks ridiculous alongside the other buildings on the quayside, and whos idea was it to want to build something to monstrous that it would block the beauty of why so many people enjoy visiting Ouseburn in all seasons - the view along the tyne?! Something that is so special is now at risk for the sake of something that doesn't even look like it remotely fits in with the aesthetic of the area. The scale of the building means it will cast shadow on significant areas along the quayside, affecting businesses and other residents. Ouseburn and the Quayside's aesthetic includes a range of buildings, including historic buildings and heritage properties and this proposed development would alter the local environment, in some cases blocking the sightline of key fixtures of Newcastle (e.g. Ouseburn School, Tyne Bar Public House, Toffee Factory). This proposal is offensive to those who have worked so hard to make Ouseburn to special, and an eyesore in one of the loveliest parts of Newcastle. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I strongly object to the plans put forward by this development. The primary concern is that there has seemingly been no consideration of the current landscape or culture of the Ouseburn Valley as the development does not appear to be in-keeping with the current area. The Ouseburn is a thriving cultural hub in Newcastle, it is home to music, artists, and craftsmen. These are currently supported by the pubs and cafes, many of which have their own studios or artistic ventures (for example, the pottery at Kiln and the music venue of The Cluny), or have a deep rooted connection to the Ouseburn Valley having been established as it became the hub of industry in the 19th century. There are also limited commercial or chain establishments in the Ouseburn Valley and it is dominated by independent businesses. This is the setting in which this development is proposed; however, the plans for a total of 150 residential dwellings seems entirely officious and domineering. There is a nod to acknowledge or tie-in with this culture with the development’s encompassing and rebuilding of the Cycle Hub café and workshop space. However, this is not at the heart of the development. It seems that this aspect of the plans is simply driven by a tick-box exercising and the fact that the Cycle Hub is already established at the site of the land they wish to develop. This is the least detailed aspect of their planning documents and if it hadn’t already been there, it seems unlikely that it would have been considered. Further still, they are not wishing to subsume the Hub into their plans, but rather plan to demolish it and re-build to their own specification—an indication of their lack of care of the pre-existing fabric of the area. The sprawling extent of the housing they wish to develop is further still likely to begin to push out the local businesses, including the car mechanics, workshops, and studios on St Lawrence Road, just behind this proposed development and all of which make up the patchwork and trademark composition of the Ouseburn. Such a commercially-driven development is likely to price-out such independent ventures and risk changing the face of the area irrevocably. Finally, there is no previous building anywhere close to the height of the proposed Malmo tower block. The closest building is the development of the prior Quay Timber site, which is 8 storeys. No consideration at all has been taken to the impact on the setting of the area—it would change for the worse the view from the Quayside and Millennium Bridge down the river, where the arch of the river Tyne as it meets the Ouseburn River is reflected in the architecture of the bridges, it would affect the view of the local residents, and it would have a major detrimental impact on the traders, particularly the Free Trade Inn, whose view down the river is famed and enjoyed by their long-standing patrons and risk majorly damaging their trade. It is extremely concerning and worrying that this development, should it be allowed to proceed, would set a precedent for high-rise buildings in the area. That precedent that would make it very difficult to reject further applications from commercial developers for such buildings, whose interest is not in protecting the culture of the Ouseburn Valley and simply commercial profit. It must not be allowed to proceed. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I wish to object to the Planning Application for the development at Malmo Quay. The reasons for my objection are many, mainly relating to the nature and scale of the multi-storey tower block and the development more broadly and the unsympathetic nature of the multistorey tower block in relation to local architecture that reflects the heritage of this area and more recent sympathetic redevelopment of the Quayside and Ouseburn area arising from significant investment by the government, non-government organisations and private developers. Although the area is designated for redevelopment for residential accommodation, providing continuity with the Quayside apartments and recent developments to the east and west of the Ouseburn barrage, the scale and design is entirely out of keeping with the structural and architectural integrity of these developments. I consider the overbearing and overshadowing scale of the tower block is entirely inappropriate given its impact on the amenity, ambience and aesthetics of the locality particularly the Ouseburn area. While these developments obscure the vista of the Quayside and the Ouseburn from all approaches, the scale of these are not overbearing, the developments reflecting the thriving culture of creativity and small/medium scale independent businesses in close proximity. I also have concerns that the scale of the development will provide a precedent for further, high rise developments along the Spillers Quay and beyond. I also have reservations about the likelihood that the development will meet local housing needs – the high rise apartments on the south side of the Tyne near the Baltic Gallery providing practical examples of the impact of speculative investment in high density developments in high profile locations that give rise to unoccupied units – reducing the socio-economic value of the development to the area. Conversely, the allocation of parking bays assigned to the Malmo Quay to which this part of the planning application relates is considered to be inadequate; the areas to the rear of the Hadrian’s Wall Path and Horatio Street paying testament to the current lack of resident parking in this area; the car park to the east of the Cycle pub currently providing adequate capacity for visitors to the area and employees of local businesses. It is important to note that this area is poorly served by the public transport system. I also have environmental concerns about the development. This area of the Quayside is an area currently open to users of the Quayside area, providing free flowing that is conducive to the use of the area as a regional cycle route along Hadrian Wall access across the Ouseburn to a range of valued and well regarded local businesses that add significant value to the amenity and recreation of the area. The Cycle Hub providing an invaluable resource on Cycle Route 72, the Tyne Bar and the Free Trade Inn public houses both constituting thriving and well respected establishments. The view from the Free Trade Inn and it’s much used beer garden, of the Tyne Bridges amounting to an absolute jewel in the crown of Tyneside. The Tyne Bar having a longstanding reputation for quality, live outdoor music afforded by its sheltered location, nestled beneath the arches of the bridge on Walker Road downwind of recently developed residential properties, though upwind of the proposed development. Whilst the Cycle Hub will fall by the wayside as a result of the development and the view from the Free Trade will not be recognisable, it is anticipated that the residents of the Malmo development will be adversely affected by noise emissions events hosted at the Tyne Bar. Both the Tyne Bar and the Free Trade Inn and their associated beer gardens that attract considerable custom during the spring and summer months will both be significantly affected by overshadowing from the development. I also have reservations relating to the disruption the construction of the development will cause to residents and users of the area together with the ornithology, terrestrial and water ecology of the area, given the limited space and challenges relating to accessibility of the area to plant and machinery and the significant noise, air quality and water impacts associated with construction of a development of this scale and complexity. The historical legacy of contamination within this area also causes significant concern, piling and excavation works potentially generating pollutant pathways to groundwater, the Ouseburn and the River Tyne, that in addition to affecting water quality, may also affect the flourishing and increasingly diverse ecology of the Ouseburn, the River Tyne now being acknowledged as one of the finest salmon rivers in the country and now also hosting eel, sea and brown trout, otter and pearl mussels. In conjunction with the current redevelopment on the south bank of the River at Gateshead, I have significant concerns of the scale of development of the Gateshead/Newcastle riverside more broadly. For the reasons above, I object to the development and I recommend the application is refused. | 16/02/2022 | |
| The development looks out of place on the quayside in terms of size and style. It is also not consistent with the bohemian vibe of the ouseburn or contemporary atmosphere of Newcastle quayside. Such a large development also carries concerns in terms of congestion and usage of already stressed amenities in the area. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I relocated for work purposes to Newcastle in 2017, and have since found the city to be a cultural, historic, progressive and dynamic city, mixing the beauty of the architecture across centuries with a proactive and fluid approach to developments. Our city needs to hold both of these things in careful balance to appeal to the people of our city and tourists and visitors - and I understand and believe in excellent decisions to attract new ideas, housing, opportunities and striking visual design. Unfortunately, this Planning Proposal does not fulfil any of those, and I whole heartedly believe that this Hybrid Application - both of it's detail of the Malmo Quay and it's secondary plan for Spillers' Quay, and the currently unshared/proposed plan - should be denied planning permission. Our Quayside is a rare beauty of the UK - and widely known as one of the most beautiful - encompassing the skilful mix of our epic bridges, cultural venues, bars and restaurants and housing. Malmo Quay, though brownfield and notoriously hard to build on due to the small size and sewage works, is one of the very few clear areas allowing access for all modes of transport. Just enough parking for the current residences, a key cycle path, Hadrian's Walk, our Quayside Market and the hundreds of thousands of pedestrians making use of the walk ways. I object to this porposal on a variety of points - including that of highways and access. I also object as the design is offensively poor. I believe that if there has to be any kind of development there, that there must be a better design that doesn't proclude the view, the light, the walk ways and the flow of people to and from Byker, Heaton, Ouseburn Vallery, Walker and more - a perspective shared with other notable architects and designers. I object on the basis that this is not sustainable, local housing. It is not made with environmental sustainability in mind, and nor will the current Malmo Quay proposal offer affordable local housing. I have been a resident professional working in Byker for 3 years, and work in two businesses in the Ouseburn Valley - so I see the local area from those without access to resources, and to those businesses with access capital. Everyone I have spoken to at both ends of this economic spectrum are in the same mind towards this offensive proposed development. Malmo Quay will be NE1 postcode - a sought after postcode, and Spillers Quay , NE6 - a less sought after postcode, but both will be unaffordable for local people working in the local industries, and I am appaled and disappointed that Newcastle City Council has invited, and supported Igloo to propose something so out of character for the iconic landscape. I would have expected our City Council to understand the unique qualities, and value to this location. Currently, this planning proposal is in direct conflict with Newcastle City Council’s Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment – particularly around Suitability 3.33 onwards. Our city – and in particular – our river and the mixture of free, accessible natural beauty, with historic, cultural landmarks, and vibrant contemporary business and trade is a vital contributor to the great character of Newcastle Gateshead and one to be proud of. Newcastle City Council can do better, and lead better than this – and it is the time to put people, environment, current opportunities and show leadership and flair in retaining the rare magnificence and ambition of the existing businesses and residents. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| The Ouseburn remains Newcastle's last bastion of creativity and individuality. It should be preserved as so many people feel passionately about it. Not only would the proposed development in question would take away from the iconic skyline as seen from the Ouseburn but it would destroy what makes the Ouseburn so special. It should be an area for independent commerce and should be protected at all costs. The garish development would be at total odds to the Ouseburn's environment and philosophy and would be detrimental to all the businesses that are situated in the area. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| The Ouseburn remains Newcastle's last bastion of creativity and individuality. It should be preserved as so many people feel passionately about it. Not only would the proposed development in question would take away from the iconic skyline as seen from the Ouseburn but it would destroy what makes the Ouseburn so special. It should be an area for independent commerce and should be protected at all costs. The garish development would be at total odds to the Ouseburn's environment and philosophy and would be detrimental to all the businesses that are situated in the area. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| As a resident of Ouseburn, I strongly object to this application, first and foremost due to the proposed construction of such a blatant eyesore along our historic quayside, amidst otherwise beautiful architecture and bridges that are such an asset to the city. Secondly, I cannot possibly envision how the district as a whole will be able to cope with such a large increase in inhabitants; there are already difficulties concerning the limited availability of parking and busy, dangerous roads (particularly along the quayside and st Lawrence where there is no speeding restriction or parking control), and with the limited access to buses and the metro, I dread to think how the roads will worsen with the ongoing developments and now this proposal. I express further concern from an environmental perspective, considering the vast amounts of litter and river pollution in the area that can reach a disgraceful level - with increasing inhabitants I can only see the once beautiful green space of Ouseburn gradually disintegrating into a waste land. This takes me to my final point; that Ouseburn is one place in which city inhabitants can access green space and little peace; it is a unique asset to our city that can really be appreciated for its incredible local businesses (many of which would be sadly affected by the disturbance of their quayside view) and it’s balance between a space of leisure and living, whilst maintaining its sites of nature and heritage - this balance is now constantly under threat by the current constructions and these relentless propositions for the future. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I wish to object to this development. The proposed development is totally out of keeping with the character and historic nature of other buildings along the Quayside and would stick out like a sore thumb. There is no provision for adequate parking and public transport is limited. The sheer size and scale of the building would create considerable problems with overshadowing and iconic views- so beloved of Newcastle residents and visitors to the City -would be ruined. Please preserve what we love about our city and reject this proposal. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| As a regular visitor to the Ouseburn both as a member of the public, and with business interests, I find this proposal totally unacceptable. It will impact upon the area in various ways,. Form a business perspective, those in the hospitality and leisure industries will be massively impacted by the presence of the finished building and its occupants. Music, arts, leisure and hospitality are a vital part of the Ouseburn and have been for a long time, they have become a 'go to' place for people visiting the area in search of culture and to sample the heritage of the area as a whole. I have personally relied upon the area in my capacity as a manager of a music business enterprise, and I feel the over-gentrification and over population in the area, specifically of an unnecessary and non-vital nature, is something which needs to be stopped from going any further. The position of the building seems to have been decided purely upon taking advantage of a viewpoint that any member of the public can currently enjoy, and this will impact upon visitors to the area, and businesses in and around it. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| Objection to: Planning Application 2021/2404/01/EIA Hybrid application for Malmo and Spillers Quays As a local resident and frequent visitor to the area I object to this planning application and would like to see it refused or withdrawn. Scale, massing, heritage context and design I particularly dislike the tower proposed for Malmo Quay as it feels out of keeping with scale of the development and the hight or buildings in the surrounding area. The proposals make reference to other buildings being of a similar height in the area but the examples referenced all have substantially lower footings and/or do not obscure views of the quayside the way the tower would. It looks to be driven by numbers, or housing targets, as merely a residential block rather than adhering to the policy drivers around placemaking or townscape design, which its location merits and which Historic England insist are crucial to the protection and enhancement of a setting. Additionally, the quality of provision for people walking, wheeling, and cycling through the Malmo development looks poor, particularly given the high, and likely increasing, volumes of people accessing the area. Despite a low level of parking provided by the development, so many residents are likely to create a significant increase in motor vehicles traffic to what is otherwise a very quiet and therefore pleasant place to walk, wheel and cycle. The proposals are likely not in keeping with the DfT LTN 1/20 guidance for suitable cycling provision. Malmo compared to Spillers Despite Malmo being a relatively small site compared to Spillers, there is a disproportionate distribution of housing at the Malmo site. The Spillers site is much more suitable for a higher proportion and given the height of the bank, the buildings there would be much more in keeping with the scale and reduce the impact on the quayside vista. The Cycle Hub I am concerned about the proposal to demolish the Cycle Hub building, as it is an integral mixed-use building that adds a great deal of value and character to the area. Being located on the National Cycle Network (NCN) route 72 means the Hub is ideally placed to support both local and long-distance cyclists. Given the redevelopment of the quayside to be more cycle friendly and ambitions of the council to increase levels of cycling, the hub is integral to the resilience and quality of life for residents and visitors to the city. The cultural importance of the Cycle Hub was captured in a paper published by Newcastle University in 2019 (https://theses.ncl.ac.uk/jspui/handle/10443/4687). The provision on Malmo is insufficient to replace a café/community space which can accommodate 80 visitors with many more using the outside seating, a large bike workshop with storage, and offices for a sister organisation. Locating these thriving and valued businesses in different units undermines the current successful cross-subsidising model of operation and threatens its viability. There exists in the proposal no alternative location for community activity on this scale to take place, which is essential to a thriving community. Ouseburn derives its character from the juxtaposition of old and new buildings and a variety of uses existing in harmony. Demolishing the Hub and erecting only new buildings will erode the character of the Quay around the river mouth, that this mix brings. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| Objection to: Planning Application 2021/2404/01/EIA Hybrid application for Malmo and Spillers Quays As a local resident and frequent visitor to the area I object to this planning application and would like to see it refused or withdrawn. Scale, massing, heritage context and design I particularly dislike the tower proposed for Malmo Quay as it feels out of keeping with scale of the development and the hight or buildings in the surrounding area. The proposals make reference to other buildings being of a similar height in the area but the examples referenced all have substantially lower footings and/or do not obscure views of the quayside the way the tower would. It looks to be driven by numbers, or housing targets, as merely a residential block rather than adhering to the policy drivers around placemaking or townscape design, which its location merits and which Historic England insist are crucial to the protection and enhancement of a setting. Additionally, the quality of provision for people walking, wheeling, and cycling through the Malmo development looks poor, particularly given the high, and likely increasing, volumes of people accessing the area. Despite a low level of parking provided by the development, so many residents are likely to create a significant increase in motor vehicles traffic to what is otherwise a very quiet and therefore pleasant place to walk, wheel and cycle. The proposals are likely not in keeping with the DfT LTN 1/20 guidance for suitable cycling provision. Malmo compared to Spillers Despite Malmo being a relatively small site compared to Spillers, there is a disproportionate distribution of housing at the Malmo site. The Spillers site is much more suitable for a higher proportion and given the height of the bank, the buildings there would be much more in keeping with the scale and reduce the impact on the quayside vista. The Cycle Hub I am concerned about the proposal to demolish the Cycle Hub building, as it is an integral mixed-use building that adds a great deal of value and character to the area. Being located on the National Cycle Network (NCN) route 72 means the Hub is ideally placed to support both local and long-distance cyclists. Given the redevelopment of the quayside to be more cycle friendly and ambitions of the council to increase levels of cycling, the hub is integral to the resilience and quality of life for residents and visitors to the city. The cultural importance of the Cycle Hub was captured in a paper published by Newcastle University in 2019 (https://theses.ncl.ac.uk/jspui/handle/10443/4687). The provision on Malmo is insufficient to replace a café/community space which can accommodate 80 visitors with many more using the outside seating, a large bike workshop with storage, and offices for a sister organisation. Locating these thriving and valued businesses in different units undermines the current successful cross-subsidising model of operation and threatens its viability. There exists in the proposal no alternative location for community activity on this scale to take place, which is essential to a thriving community. Ouseburn derives its character from the juxtaposition of old and new buildings and a variety of uses existing in harmony. Demolishing the Hub and erecting only new buildings will erode the character of the Quay around the river mouth, that this mix brings. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I strongly object to the proposal. The developers have not correctly looked into the issue of noise from neighbouring venues. Venues that are the beating heart of this vibrant and historical area. There is a reason that the Ouseburn was named as one of the coolest neighbourhoods in the world in a recent poll; this proposed development is completely out of place in terms of scale and aesthetic, and would detract from the historical and organic nature of the area. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| My objection against this development mainly stems from the lack of infrastructure currently in place in the surrounding area. Malmo Quay is currently only served by a small road. The new development will lead to an increase in traffic in the area, which could drive up air pollution. The area between St. Peters Basin and Malmo Quay is only served by 1 bus service at the moment, which can become very busy especially on weekends. An influx of new residents to the area would cause strain on the public transport available in the area, unless investment is made to increase the frequency of services. Infrastructure aside, the tower block does not fit in with the architectural make up of the area. While the lower rise buildings fit with some of the more recent developments around the Ouseburn, a large tower block seems out of place compared to how other new developments have been integrated in to the surrounding area | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| Irreparable damage to view of one of Newcastles most iconic pubs. If allowed this is a plain cash grab at the expense of the surrounding ouseburn area. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| Irreparable damage to view of one of Newcastles most iconic pubs. If allowed this is a plain cash grab at the expense of the surrounding ouseburn area. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| As a resident in the local area, this development is not in keeping with the local area and would not compliment existing services and housing in the area. The development woukd be an eyesore and would ruin the fantastic views, atmosphere and convenience of the area. There are lots of local businesses in the area that will suffer due to this development and is not in keeping with the quayside and Ouseburn | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I do not consider the application to be suitable for the Ouseburn; Scale - the height of the main tower block is not in keeping with the local area, the tower will visually dominate over the surrounding area and detract from the historic feel of the Ouseburn. The CGI views have been chosen from a distance to relate the building to a 'horizon' level that is not visible when actually stood on the quayside. Fire - Single staircase to the tower - although this may in theory comply with Building Regulations the experiences of Grenfell Tower should be taken in to account (shelter in place), the use of mechanical ventilation can also pose risks with the complexity of operation for fire brigades & maintenance (or lack of) causing issues after construction. Parking - 18no parking spaces immediately adjacent to the tower with remote parking in a parking barn to Spillers Quay, although the quantities of parking may be accurate over the whole site the distribution of parking and lack of space for visitors is an potential issue Noise - the Tyne Bar is an important music and cultural venue in the city, the impact of a residential development in such close proximity is worrying for the future of this venue, there are and it would be a loss to Newcastle to have this venue restricted by a later development that objected to the current arrangement. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to 2021/2404/01/EIA Malmo Quays Plan. I live in the surrounding area and frequent Ouseburn often for its views, small community feel and pubs/restaurants. The new development does not fit in with the rest of the area in its height and will directly impact the surrounding buildings in overshadowing. The sheer amount of extra habitants will only bring detriment to this small area in that there are no plans for social housing and will create a huge amount of congestion, which already is suffering with new housing developments in the area. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| The building is not fitting with the buildings surrounding it, it's far too tall, and if we're all honest, it's absolutely ugly. Not only this, but public transport to this area isn't great, in fact, the roads are quite narrow, and a building with so many people in is going to cause congestion and endangerment along the cycle path The noise pollution from Horatio street and near by streets needs to be considered, as well as policing the area. Pollution, Parking and flooding to be taken into account. This building will destroy the area and tourism from locals/out area’s due to how unique ouseburn is. I urge you to consider scrapping this project as it does not fit the area. The plans contradict the Tyne Gorge study - https://www.gateshead.gov.uk/media/2383/Tyne-Gorge-urban-landscape-stud… | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| The building design is ugly an is not in keeping with the aesthetic of that area of the quayside and and the industrial heritage of the lower end of ouseburn and will dominate the skyline of that area detracting from the original features of the bridge and locks. What is more, the tower block will destroy a unique viewpoint of the city from the hill. The space would be put to far better use if it were developed into a park/recreational green space | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| Please listen to the local residents who are objecting to this development. The proposals in terms of appearance and density are not at all in keeping with the surrounding area, which is of enormous cultural significance to the region. The development will irreparably alter the famous sightlines and thereby the enjoyment of local heritage sites. It will also physically obstruct access to the same. There is also a likelihood that the development will have a direct impact on beloved local nightlife such as the Tyne Bar. The plans are acoustically insufficient and noise complaints as a result of this could be the death knell for local establishments. This has happened before and has not been forgotten. Thank you. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| 16 February 2022 Planning application 2021/2404/01/EIA Land On the Former Malmo and Spillers Quays on The North Bank of The River Tyne Quayside Road, Newcastle Upon Tyne We are aware of, and extremely concerned by, the hybrid planning application submitted for the Malmo and Spillers Quay sites, and wish to formally object. It is our opinion that the development as it has been submitted is grossly inappropriate for the site for a number of reasons as listed below. We understand that the application has been submitted as a ‘hybrid’ application, including the attempt to define the limits of the Spillers Site ahead of an application in the future. We have several issues with the concept of the Hybrid application, and believe that it both attempts to make promises about the Malmo Development with no obligation to fulfil them (such as parking), but also makes presumptions about the environment in which a future application for Spillers will take place with no consideration for environmental changes in the meantime (Whey Aye Wheel & others). Our Objection below is split to address the Malmo and Spillers parts of the application separately… MALMO QUAY SCALE, MASSING AND OVERDEVELOPMENT The Ouseburn, Quayside and surrounding area is possibly the most culturally and architecturally diverse area in the city. According to the Urban Core Policy (Section 5 16.81) “The Quayside and Ouseburn’s built environment is defined by distinctive buildings, many of which are historic, of different sizes and orientations.” The Urban Core Spatial Vision And Strategy (6.11) continues; “Gateshead and Newcastle are distinctive places with a strong identity. The bridges and iconic buildings of the Quayside and Quays are instantly recognisable and the defining topographical feature is the Tyne Gorge and the River Tyne that runs through it. Paragraph 130 of the NPPF (2021) requires new development to be visually attractive and of a good layout. It should be sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting. CSUCP Policy UC12 reiterates this stating that new development needs to respect and enhance the positive characteristics and context as well as being of an appropriate urban grain that reinforces continuity. With specific regard to the visual sensitivity, Policy UC13 sets out a presumption against proposals that would cause harm to views within, from and into the Urban Core and from, across or into the Tyne Gorge. Policy CS15 also requires development to respect and enhance significant views and includes respecting the River Tyne and it’s setting. Saved Policy EN2.b requires the appearance of the city from the main approaches and from major movement corridors through the built up area from or across the River Tyne to be enhanced by the design of new development being sensitive to its setting. We are concerned that the scale of the development harms the character and context of the area and does not accord with the aforementioned policies. The grossly inappropriate scale of 18 storeys is overly dominant and will be disastrously out of context, dwarfing adjacent existing development. In addition, it will dominate views along the Tyne and the skyline. It will significantly will alter the skyline by obscuring views of many of the cultural and heritage assets of the area including the grade II* listed Former Ouseburn School, the grade II* listed Tom Collins House, The Sailor’s Bethel as made famous by L.S Lowry, Glass House Bridge, The Toffee Factory and Tyne Bar Public House. Hence, it fails to respect or enhance the setting of the heritage assets or of the existing urban context. DAYLIGHT, SUNLIGHT AND OVERSHADOWING With reference to the 18 Storey tower block specifically. There is a very real danger of significant loss of sunlight and of overshadowing of existing residents and businesses. It is undeniable that a structure of this size would block direct sunlight to residents and operating businesses in the vicinity, impacting on the quality of life and ability to trade. The shadow analysis prepared by the applicant (Design and Access Statement Chapter 5) also confirms that residents of Mariners Wharf, City Peak Apartments Steenbergs Yard, and possibly The Malings will be subject to shadow from the building, but also local businesses including Free Trade Inn, Tyne Bar, Hotel Du Vin and occupants of the Toffee Factory and possibly Northern Rye and De Meo’s. This would significantly alter the ability of these businesses, especially the Free Trade Inn and Tyne bar, to operate as usual as two businesses who rely heavily on outdoor and seasonal trade. PARKING AND TRANSPORT Parking and general traffic in the local area is already under extreme pressure. The current plans propose supplying 24 car parking spaces for 77 homes, including a measly quota of 18 for the 62 apartments in the tower block. This may be in line with national policy, however we do not feel it reflects the specifics of the site of the area. WIth no provision for affordable housing and with this developers track record in the area of ‘luxury’ builds, it is not unreasonable to assume that many of these units will be more than one-car households. Indeed their legacy in this area with their previous ‘Malings’ site, is one of conflict and unease between local residents, businesses and pedestrians as the provision of parking has been sorely under provided. With reference to the plans of an additional 76 car parking spaces as part of the Spillers development, we do not believe that those proposed provisions should have any bearing on the viability of the Malmo application. At best those spaces will not be available for an estimated four years, though they may never appear or be severely reduced as there will be nothing binding the developer to provide them. The Spillers site will also see the development of a further 73 dwellings, which again fall into the ‘Luxury’ category, so again we would assume many multiple car households. These issues will be further worsened by the fact that a fully functioning and extremely popular car-park is being removed on Spillers Quay to make way for the proposed development, in a move which will remove over 150 car parking spaces from the area. With the proposed removal of Spiller car park and the upcoming ‘Whey Aye’ developments, parking and traffic pressures are only going to increase in the area. It is inevitable that the current plans will greatly add to the parking pressures in the area and on our own St Lawrence Road, not only removing (already extremely limited) parking opportunities for our customers, but also for existing residents of City Peak Apartments. St Lawrence Road is already narrow and this application will result in an increase in the use of the highway and an inevitable build up of congestion. We also have considerable concerns over safety with the increased numbers of vehicles using the highway given that the corner of the Free Trade Inn is essentially a blind bend. There is a real possibility this could endanger cyclists and pedestrians who are encouraged and prioritised by current transport policy and who’s numbers are great, due to the close proximity of the ‘Cycle Hub’ and national cycle route 72. NOISE IMPACT We believe that the plans submitted in their current form represent a very real risk of opening our Ouseburn neighbours ‘The Tyne Bar’ business up to complaints by future residents. The Tyne Bar is a bustling public house with customers coming and going throughout their licence times, and with outside space regularly full with customers enjoying the live music, for which they are famous. The proposal to build dwellings, considered as noise sensitive development, places their business at risk as inevitably future residents will make complaints about noise levels. As they, and several other local businesses including ourselves, operate under a licence which can be reviewed, complaints from residents could result in significant changes that significantly harm the existing operations and could even result in closure. Paragraph 187 of the NPPF seeks to protect existing businesses and community facilities including pubs, and prevent them from having “unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established”. It also goes on to state that where existing businesses could have an adverse effect on proposed development, the applicant or ‘agent of change’ is required to provide suitable mitigation before the development is completed. The Tyne Bar is renowned as a conscientious operator, with great relationships with other local businesses and residents, including the newly established ‘Malings Business and Residents Forum’. We fear though, that the addition of the proposed development so close to their main area of operation would severely hamper their ability to operate as normal, and to make almost impossible the ability to host live music which is integral to their business, and to participate in important community events such as the Ouseburn Festival. SPILLERS QUAY As laid out above, we feel that the proposals for the Malmo Quay site would lead to extreme pressures on parking, infrastructure and transport in an area already under severe pressure. The idea that provisional consent could be given on a site which is seeking a further 73 dwellings seems short sighted at best. Currently in the immediate area there is residential construction work taking place on St Lawrence Road and Ford Street, with planning permission being sought for the land adjacent to the Free Trade Inn, and of course planning permission has been granted for the Whey Aye Wheel and an Aparthotel on Back Maling Street. It is only right and proper that this developer should seek the appropriate planning permissions at the time, when the appropriate studies can be conducted on the traffic, transport and infrastructures pressures as they will exist then. This should particularly include cycling and pedestrian safety with what is guaranteed to be a huge increase in car use near popular walking routes and National Cycle Route 72. FURTHER POINTS - COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT We are extremely worried about the impact of the proposed Malmo Quay development, and it’s effects on local residents, businesses and the vibrant community of the Ouseburn and Quayside. This development is not only completely inappropriate for the site, and out of place in the specific post-industrial context of the Ouseburn, but threatens some of Newcastle’s most beloved cultural and heritage assets. The planning process at it’s best should be a conversation between the developer, community and the council to help inform and shape development suitable for the area. We firmly believe that this developer has not understood the cultural and historical significance of the site and of the area. Infact throughout the process of community consultation the developer’s position has been purely prescriptive and has shown no signs of taking on board any of the opinions we ourselves have voiced or have known others to make. Indeed where the developer has presented what appear to be concessions, these have been born from revelations with the site (such as finding the ‘NWL assets to be in a different place than on plan’) rather than the result of any community engagement. We have heard many times from the developer that this is a ‘challenging site’, and that the only way to make this site viable is with the addition of the 18 storey tower block. If this is the case then we’d be strongly inclined to say that for this developer, it is just not viable. This site is of such importance to the City of Newcastle and to the Quayside, Ouseburn Valley and entire East End, that is really deserves more than what this developer has proposed. This city and this community should certainly not have to accept all of the issues an inappropriate development like this would bring simply to create profit for this developer. Edward Pye & Michael Potts Owner / General Manager Free Trade Inn St Lawrence Road NE6 1AP 07584636656 16/02/22 | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I would like to take this time to state my objection to the 18 storey tower block that Developer PFP Igloo have applied to develop at Malmo Quay. I believe that such a structure would be entirely out of character in regards to the surrounding area. There are no other similar buildings anywhere near the Ouseburn that are of a similar height. None of the buildings along the Quayside towards the city centre exceed more than 12 stories at most, with St Anne's Quay being the closest and most relevant example at only 11 to 12 stories high. The only taller structure located anywhere near Malmo Quay would be the 26 story Shieldfield House, located a mile to the north west of the site. There are numerous other vacant plots of land in Newcastle city centre that would be far more appropriate for such a structure, even the vacant plot directly to the east of St Anne's Quay would be far more suitable than at the head of the Ouseburn Valley. In my opinion, I would say that the newly developed Hadrians Tower in the city centre has been quite a success and that similar new high rise towers in close proximity would be far more in character than at Malmo Quay. The Ouseburn has certainly established itself as a niche and alternative area of Newcastle and the North East of England. Even though it’s popularity means that significant development in the area is inevitable, as can be seen with the Malings and other surrounding new builds, the scale and particularly the height of any new planned developments in the area certainly does need to be constrained. As far as I am aware, the wider plan for development of the Ouseburn relies very much on a small number of cultural and nightlife venues to attract the higher end clientele that would be interested in purchasing property in such sites as Malmo Quays. However, the appeal and even the existence of these venues, such as the nearby Free Trade Inn and The Tyne Bar, are inexorably threatened by such excessive developments. The very character of the Ouseburn, that makes it's such a desirable location to visit or reside in, could potentially be destroyed if not seriously harmed by allowing such a disproportionate and unnecessary development to take place. If PFP Igloo state that the only way to make the development at Malmo Quay financially viable is to construct an 18 storey tower block, then perhaps this is a very pertinent sign that this specific area should ultimately remain undeveloped. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to this project as it will have a detrimental impact on the natural beauty of the area, the current culture of the area and the businesses already established. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to this project as it will have a detrimental impact on the natural beauty of the area, the current culture of the area and the businesses already established. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| As a local resident & regular visitor I object to this development for the reasons below. The size, appearance, layout and density of the proposed development its completely inappropriate to the existing topography of the Ouseburn. There is not sufficient parking or allowances for the number of residents in the local area in a condensed space & the use of elevation in the building to this extent demonstrates the disregard for appropriate space, at the wider expense the surrounding environment consisting of flats & houses at a maximum height of several stories The Ouseburn’s identity as cultural hub of work, community, living & socials spaces is threatened by this project. The building is in complete disregard of the surrounding historical buildings such as: Grade II Listed Ouseburn School Sailors Bethal Tyne Bar Public House Toffee Factory Glasshouse Bridge The above buildings are not only threatened by their right to sunlight, but also the congestion, noise pollution & inadequate parking for the property, some of which suggested in the development would not be complete until several years after the projects development. With several residential flats/property developments alongside the ouseburn river, all of which retain the aesthetic of the area in height, materials & population relative to services & access. It would be grossly irresponsible to residents & the communities which come together into the Ouseburn from the surrounding council area, to continue the development in the form the tower block height proposed. It ultimately detracts from the ouseburn’s cultural/ operational significance in so many way & its existence of which seeks to capitalise from the area & its thriving community. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| Does not meet core strategy. Noise impact assessment does not take into account existing community landscape. Likely to elicit complaints from prospective residents re noise levels from local cultural venues. Venues pre-exist building and will be placed in a position of harm. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| Planning application reference: 2021/2404/01/EIA Name: Dr. Nigel Dipper Address: 40 High Quay, City Road, Newcastle, NE1 2PD I would like to object to the proposed development on Malmo Quay and Spillers quay for the following reason: I can see no point in the application where the developers have considered the effects of noise on these proposed new properties from the Tyne Bar. This is a well know and well loved live music location. Music is played both inside and outside the pub. If the new properties are not designed with sufficient sound insulation, complaints from residents could lead to the prevention of live music at the pub. Live music is one of the artistic highlights of the Ouseburn. The development is not appropriate as it stands and should be rejected. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| The scale of the main tower block development is completely out of context to its surroundings, both on the quayside area and the neighbouring connected Ouseburn area. It is an extreme design and does not reflect the neighbourhood in which it wishes to be placed. The evolution of the Ouseburn area and surrounding edges of Byker have evolved in a measured and complimentary way both through economic natural development and cultural and creative industries. This building ignores all of this in it's scale, end location, end use and visual appearance. It also very, very clearly blocks and dramatically changes the view down the river from the likes of the Free Trade pub. This is a genuine heavyweight emblem of North East culture (and the now trendy Ouseburn area) and is well loved through generations regionally and beyond. There is also inadequate provision for parking or the impact of increased traffic or on cyclists within this development. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I wish to object very strongly to this application: my main concern is with the height and scale of the main tall tower. It doesn't take an architect to realise that from almost any viewpoint around the Tyne quayside area this development would stick out like a sore thumb. Other developments along that part of the Tyne are much more in keeping with the general scale of the gorge, and indeed with other older buildings. This single huge building would seriously detract from the experience of hundreds of thousands of residents and visitors who currently use the quayside as a wonderful place to relax and enjoy a wind down from their work. I don't object to a development of some sort on this site, but it needs to be in keeping with the immediate area so it doesn't spoil what we already have. On another level, I am also concerned that the density of residential spaces here would cause serious issues for transport, parking, and noise. To place such a tall building close to the Tyne Bar, with its famous and hugely enjoyed weekend gigs, is asking for long term trouble: the noise from those gigs is actually wonderful for many people, but it would carry to the upper floors and would only take a small number of residents there to threaten the future of this wonderful experience for Geordies. Please request a redesign that is properly in keeping with this fabulous stretch of river. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| Dear planning office, I write to object to this planning application. An 18-storey tower is completely out of keeping for the area. It will be tallest building by far and will unduly dominate and overshadow the historic Ouseburn area. Moreover, in my expert opinion, as an architectural critic and author of 7 books and over 100 articles on architecture and related subjects, the design is of extremely poor quality. The massing is clumsy and overbearing. Materially, the brown brick facing is inappropriate for a building of this scale, making it appear a brown, lumpen mass. The lower rise buildings on the site are also of poor design quality, being generic examples of 'New London Vernacular' transplanted to Newcastle with little consideration of the history and architecture of the Ouseburn and the surrounding city. They are a classic case of architecture by numbers. We can and should expect so much better. From practical perspective, there is insufficient parking for a development of this scale which will have significant impacts on surrounding streets. This is compounded by the lack of public transport connections, which make the site inappropriate for a development of this scale. In addition, a building of such a scale, which necessarily requires significant amounts of carbon-intensive materials – notable concrete and steel – to construct, goes against Newcastle City Council's admirable climate ambitions. This is, of course, not limited to construction: tall buildings consume more carbon in use (as well as construction) than lower-rise buildings. I am not objective to the principle of developing the site, but the scale and poor quality of this proposal. There is much scope for a sensitive and thoughtful development that would contribute to rather than damage the local area. However what is proposed is about as far from this as it is possible to be. I urge you in the strongest terms to reject this application. Yours sincerely, Owen Hopkins | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| Dear whom it may concern, I understand that new buildings are due to be started on the quayside. I am writing to object to the large 18 story building's construction. I regret to write that the 18 story building does look truly awful. It just does not fit in at all with the surrounding area. It dwarf's every other building nearby. Does anyone really want the most dominant building on this area of the quayside to look like an enlarged cheese grater? This building seems to have a very large amount of apartments with very little parking facilities. Often, finding a parking spot around this area is tricky enough, now with this new building that could potentially have hundreds of people in it, where are all the cars going to go? The traffic would undoubtedly get much worse. There are certainly not enough public transport links in this area, which will compound the parking / traffic issues. This extremely tall building will undoubtedly cut off sunlight from surrounding buildings, literally overshadowing and further damaging the aesthetic of this area. This building has no synergy with the listed buildings in the area: Grade II Listed Ouseburn School; Sailors Bethal; Tyne Bar Public House; Toffee Factory; Glasshouse Bridge. This will devalue the metaphysical heritage, which I considers physically priceless. Another issue close to everyone in the area's heart, is live music in the area. if this development goes ahead there will almost certainly be complaints about "noise" from the new residents. These complaints will have to be considered by the Council, who will be duty bound to issue the Tyne Bar with a Noise Abatement Notice, effectively putting an end to all live music from the legendary venue. I have been to various pubs and bars, and have heard much talk of disruption protests if these plans go ahead. I would urge the business' involved to factor this in to their cost analysis, and the planning committee to factor in to their public image. The Ouseburn area has so much priceless culture, and a rare ability stay invaluably 'cool'. This beauty should not be compromised for profit. Yours Sincerely, Dr Phil Brown | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| The Scale and massing of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for it's location. This would have a negative effect for the views onto the historic quayside of Newcastle. It would be a view spoiler and ruin the aesthetic of the Ouseburn, the Quayside and the up and Hoults Yard. The submitted plans for Malmo Quay appear to only show 18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block, woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. There are also no close by metro stations, which makes any accessibility an issue. The building design proposal doesn't compliment the rest of the area. I don't think this is the right location to have such a modern building design contrasting totally with the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| The size of the proposed building is far too large. The character of the Ouseburn is very distinctive, comprising of small businesses and older buildings which have historical value and attract visitors to it. The Tower block would be a standout feature and I do not mean that in any positive manner. Its angular design is quite vulgar (and I'm a fan of brutalist architecture!) that looks dated already and doesn't fit with anything in the area. This will massively alter the look of an area that houses listed buildings, it's scale is too large and its dated, angular design jarring to the topography of the land. The scale is also clearly going to block sunlight to various areas and buildings. There are businesses that attract people more in summer. The beer gardens of the Tyne bar and free trade are famous, but this keeps the area vibrant and a draw. A huge tower block overshadowing these would have a dire effect. As would any noise complaints from residents. Outdoor live music is another attraction of the area. I don't believe the residents will not make opposition to noise down the line, and in summer when people have windows open this puts local business, not just the bar trade, but all the businesses in the area that rely on the Ouseburn being a creative hub, at a risk. My final concern to raise would be the increased traffic in the area. There is already a lack of parking spaces in the area and the proposed car parks do not seem to cover what would be required. The additional flow of traffic would also create issues, again not in keeping with the area, but also potentially dangerous. I jog along the cycle path that runs along the river and this would be effected, now blocked between a building/car park and a busy road. There is minimal transport in the area and at the bottom of a hill with transport at the top, it seems unlikely car usage would not be very high. Transport links are already minimal and as someone who needs to use the q3 I have already got concerns this bus link is overcrowded at peak times and there has been talk of it being taken off. Thank you for reading these concerns. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| Dear Sir/Madam I am writing to object to planning application 2021/2404/01/EIA for Malmo Quay and Spillers Quay. The Development Plan for the City I understand there are specific policies for the area covering Malmo Quay in the Quayside and Ouseburn Sub-Area which is part of the Urban Core. With reference to Policy QO1 Quayside and Ouseburn Sub-Area the following should be noted: “Promoting the development of the Quayside and Ouseburn Sub-Area as a diverse and sustainable mixed-use area which will be achieved by: .1. the development of a mix of housing types, sizes and tenures including family homes; .6. Sustaining and enhancing the character of the area through the reuse of vacant historic buildings and by respecting the scale, plot sizes, topography and historic grain of the area” With regard to QO1 it would seem that the application falls short of addressing the City’s housing needs. The number of 3 bed or more homes in the proposed development is under 30%. There should be a mix of housing types within the development and evidently there are not. Further it is unclear how a development of “luxury” properties serves the Byker area and the housing for the residents therein. The inclusion of an out of place eighteen-story tower block in the development is not understood other than to achieve a necessary housing density on the development to achieve a profit for this otherwise expensive and unviable site. In relation to QO1.6, Policy UC13 should be read alongside namely: “Respecting and Managing views within, from and into the Urban Core: to respect important public views there will be a presumption against development proposals that would cause significant harm. Views that will be respected include those: 1. from or across or into the Tyne Gorge; 2. from defined major movement corridors/routeways; and 3. of designated heritage assets, other distinctive landmark buildings and structures. QO1.6 and UC13 are at the crux of my objection to Malmo Tower. The proposed tower does not reflect the scale of the area, it would be the tallest structure for some distance when compared to the principal in situ reference points. The drive to provide a profit on the development has set an arbitrary target for the number of homes on the site without consideration of what a good scale of development might be. It is noted with interest that the applicant’s own evidence in the Environmental Statement “Townscape and Visual Impact Statement” refers to the Tyne Gorge Study 2003. Within this study there are a number of relevant statements which point towards the conclusion that the application should be blocked: “New built development that is overly large in scale, for example development that masks the scale of the topography of the Gorge Sides should be avoided” “New built developments that alters the rhythm of the Quayside buildings” “New built developments that obscure local landmarks along the top of the gorge” It is self-evident that the Tower is “overly large in scale” and “masks the scale of the topography of the Gorge Sides”. The 2003 study recommends that developments should conversve the rhythm of built development along the quayside and enhance topography of the gorge side slope” it is clear that the proposed development does not accord with the existing quayside developments. Any new development should maintain the scale, pattern and rhythm of the existing buildings. The applicant suggests that this a design of “exceptional quality” this is at best misguided and at worst laughable. The design is a beige monstrosity with little to no architectural merit that is far from inkeeping with the historic buildings and industrial heritage of the Quayside. Finally I refer to the Supplementary Planning Document on Newcastle Tall Buildings which states that there will be a presumption against tall buildings that: 1. rise from the River Tyne bankside level significantly higher than present landmark structures on the Quayside; 2. are significantly higher than present landmark structures on top of the River Tyne escarpment; 3. are significantly higher than general building heights within the historic core. It clear that Malmo Quay falls within all three of these categories and should therefore be refused. There is no reason to rebut the presumption against tall buildings. Highways, transport, parking and air quality The submitted plans for Malmo Quay appear to only show 18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block, woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. The provision of parking is therefore inadequate for the size of the development. Problematic on-street parking will increase traffic generation, result in inadequate loading and turning space and effect highway safety in an area popular with pedestrians and cyclists It is noted that the proposed 73 Parking Spaces on Spillers Wharf are not actually part of this application. These spaces in any event won't be available for at least 3-4 years, will also have to service the 76 apartments potentially being build there and there's a fully functioning carpark being removed to create that site Furthermore, public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. The lack of provision is indicative of the unsuitability of the proposed tower and a lack of forethought and consideration from the planners. The existing highway infrastructure is weak. The majority of access routes are by way of narrow roads or cobbled streets. The additional increase of traffic to this route would inevitably result in bottlenecking and pollution on an already busy route. Many of the roads in the locality are narrow with restricted lines of site and often used by pedestrians, it is averred that an increase in traffic would pose a serious safety risk. Existing Communities Impact There are significant concerns relating to the complex inter-relationship between urban gentrification and the existing community which are not properly addressed by the proposal and the impact of regeneration on the ability of police to continue to deliver effective policing in an already busy beat. There is a real risk of dislocating and disadvantaging existing communities through gentrification of urban spaces. This cannot be mitigated through increasing shared community space – something which is evident at the Staiths development. The planning application seems to ignore the impact on the long established communities of the East End. The community statement suggests that the site will benefit the public realm and public amenity. The development effectively draws a line between existing residents and the new proposed development. It is inevitable that routes in the development will be blocked by residents who will (unsurprisingly) not want people to be able to walk through what is being marketed as an “exclusive development” – it is therefore unclear how this will be of wider public benefit. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I would like to strongly object to this proposal - the size of this tower block is huge, which compared to the surroundings it would make it very inappropiate. The design of the tower also does not fit with the area. I am also concerned about parking availability as the proposal only shows 18 parking spaces for the 62 apartments, which will create pressure on street parking in the area. Accessibility would also be a problem due to limited/non-existent bus or metro services nearby. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| Ref: 2021/2404/01/EIA - 'Malmo Quay' The proposal of this development as presented is entirely unsuitable to the area for a variety of reasons, the main reason is it is completely out of character with the existing environment. The most obvious issue is the size of the 18 story residential block – if built it will literally and figuratively overshadow the entire area. Looking toward the area from the west this tower block will stand out from the rest of the area as an eyesore – height alone is a serious issue that is not only at odds with the immediate surrounding area but also the Quayside as a whole. The same can be said of the aesthetics of this building – it does not keep with the 19th Century of the majority of the surrounding buildings. It is closer to T.Dan Smith than anything else and that is a scar on Newcastle we can never undo. Such a modern obtrusive building will significantly detract from the historic area in which it would sit, an area that has become very desirable to visit and live in; it will marred the area being so unsuited to the area. Given the size of the building and the orientation it will have a substantial impact on the surrounding area from the evening onwards with a monstrous shadow being cast on the area to the east of the building. This will most highly it will impact the local businesses, long established and of historic importance to the city; not to mention affecting local residential properties. There is a dire lack of adequate public transport to this area, unless the developers are willing to make substantial contributions towards ongoing investment into public transport for many years to come then the area is likely to become unmanageably busy with cars both in traffic and parking – the proposed 18 spaces with the development to serve 62 apartments is woefully inadequate. The area is a cultural hub in Newcastle, notably with live music at the Tyne Bar as well as other areas in Ouseburn, with 62 new apartments it is impossible to not see how there will not be noise complaints – especially in the summer months when the weather is warmer and windows will need to be open. Unless of course the plans contain means to provide the whole building with air conditioning from entirely self-generating power then tower block residents will open windows as energy prices prove increasingly expensive. It is unreasonable to build a large residential tower block so close to an are of important cultural contribution to Newcastle’s identity as a vibrant and important city. This plan is clearly an ill-conceived plan to build as much property as the developers can and then once they’ve made as much profit as they can leave the current residents and businesses to argue and suffer with disputes with new residents and a detriment to the value and historic quality of the area from as it is now. This application should be rejected. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I wish to object to the development planned for Malmö and Spillers Quay, for a number of reasons. The entire scheme is inappropriate for an area with such valuable industrial and cultural heritage, but it is the 18-storey tower block which seems completely at odds with the rest of the area. The profound effect this would have on the aspect from the eastern side have been documented by others: as I am resident on the western side of the city centre, I wish to emphasise the detrimental effect the development would also have on the approach from the city side. I have often brought visitors from overseas along the Quayside to enjoy the views and given that tourism operators (and other businesses) like to promote the Tyne, I feel Malmo is a blatant contradiction to these efforts. Another aspect is the shortage of parking space when there is also a serious deficiency in the availability of public transport in the area. As a cyclist, I also object to the moving of the Cycle Hub and the possible effects on the cycle path along the river. Finally, I understand there is a considerable risk of contamination of the land around the area, due to centuries of industrial use. All of the above make this development proposal completely unacceptable, both to local residents and to all those who appreciate the cultural value of the area and the already existing businesses which benefit from it. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I would like to object to the proposed development from a research-based and academic position. It strikes me that this kind of development is a 'throw' back to city urban planning from the 1990s rather than 2022. Rather than providing luxury flats for the propertied elite (the taller, the more status?) in an area where, even now, one begins to see signs along the riverside of 'private property', we need to be working towards keeping space public and for the benefit of everyone. One might ask, who does this development benefit and why would most residents of the city not be opposed to this, as it clearly is not in their interest? | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I would like to object to the proposed development from a research-based and academic position. It strikes me that this kind of development is a 'throw' back to city urban planning from the 1990s rather than 2022. Rather than providing luxury flats for the propertied elite (the taller, the more status?) in an area where, even now, one begins to see signs along the riverside of 'private property', we need to be working towards keeping space public and for the benefit of everyone. One might ask, who does this development benefit and why would most residents of the city not be opposed to this, as it clearly is not in their interest? | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| Hello, I would like to object to Application 2021/2404/01/EIA (the 'Malmo Quay' development). As a current resident of Citipeaks Apartments (who overlooks Malmo and Spiller Quay) I have the following concerns: - Size & Appearance of Proposed Buildings The high-rise building will drastically alter the beautiful Ouseburn Valley and Newcastle quayside. It will dominate the area and ruin the Heritage of the Ouseburn Valley. Its design is excessively big and to be blunt I don't think the developers could have designed a worse looking building to fit into the area which certainly will look worse through the years. - Parking / Traffic From Fig. 3.9.4 Car Parking Management Plan, I can see that there is no plans to allocate parking to residents. There is already local parking / traffic issues on St. Lawrence Road due to cars being parked on both sides which has led to many near accidents I have witnessed. This development will add to the increase in traffic and parking to St. Lawrence Road due to the large increase in residents to the area. Cars will certainly choose to use St. Lawrence Road rather than Horatio Street which has poor conditions and number of buses which come down there. - Privacy My apartments balcony and windows look directly out onto the proposed high-rise so I have concerns that residents which look towards my building will will be able to see into my apartment - Local pubs & venues will loose business The Free Trade Inn and The Tyne Bar are two of the best pubs newcastle has to offer. Building this monstrosity of a building will not only ruin the view from The Free Trade Inn and put visitors off the whole area but also put the live music at The Tyne Bar as risk due to local residents complaining about the noise. As a local resident up the hill, I enjoy the music levels as the sound deflects away but a building which almost touches the beer garden will certainly lead to complaints about the level of noise from the people in the beer garden and live music. I understand that this site needs development as its currently wasted but more thought needs to go into these plans which don't have such an awful effect on the area | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I feel the look of this building is not in keeping with the other buildings in the area. The building is a strange colour and will look out of place compared to the other buildings nearby. I strongly object to this building. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I completely object to this planning proposal. As a resident of Ouseburn for many years, I and many others in the community think this eyesore will be horrendous for Ouseburn. It is complete gentrification of the area and is a. money-making scheme that will harm the business of the local area and change the community completely. It does not belong in Ouseburn. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| Objection to the Malmo Quay development (application reference 2021/2404/01/EIA ) made by Ruby Miller of 42 Cardigan Terrace, Heaton, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE65NU. I object to the Malmo Quay development for several reasons. Firstly, it seems to be on an uneccessarily grand scale which is not in keeping with the surrounding architecture and industrial history of the quayside and Ouseburn area. Newcastle's industrial history can be seen in the beautiful low-lying redbrick warehouse buildings which stretch along the Ouse and onto the Tyne. The entirety of the Malmo development is not complimentary to this aesthetic, and especially not the 18 storey tower block which will cause significant loss of natural daylight and overshadowing to many surrounding buildings and businesses. This overshadowing will particularly effect any ecological habitats; local residents' rooftop gardens, balcony growth etc. as well as the wildlife found along the Ouse. Further to this, the introduction of such a large housing complex will bring with it the issues of parking congestion and increased air and noise pollution, affecting the health of residents and wildlife. This would be particularly apparent during the lengthy construction process, which would also negatively impact local businesses such as the Cycle Hub, Tyne Bar and Free Trade Inn. These small businesses have already suffered through and survived the pandemic, only to now be faced with the even bigger and totally avoidable threat of the Malmo Quay development. Finally, it seems entirely uneccessary to introduce housing on such a large scale to this area of the quayside. The costs of living there would surely be astronomical and attract only people from priviledged finanical backgrounds, further diluting the lack of economic and ethnic diversity that Newcastle can claim. It saddens me greatly that it has not been considered that this land be used for community spaces: shared art studios, community gardens, creative spaces for anyone and everyone to access and enrich Newcastle's culture. I urge the council to listen to the many passionate objections to the Malmo Quay development being raised by the local people for whom it will have the largest impact. We don't want this. Please, let's work together to satsify public interest! | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I wish to object to the planned Malmo Quay (2021/2404/01/EIA) complex next to the Ouseburn River. Having reviewed the planning documents, the Townscape & Visual Impact Assessment, and the Heritage Statement, I cannot see how the proposed plan is sympathetic to the character and heritage of the River Tyne area around the Newcastle and Gateshead quays, as well as the Ouseburn Valley on which the Malmo Quay development would border. The proposed 18 storey apartment block is the main problem in this new development. In the developers own Townscape & Visual Impact Assessment it is stated that threats to the Tyne Gorge character include "new build development that is overly large in scale...that masks the scale of the topography" as well as "new build development that alters the rhythm of quayside buildings". Given the Quayside is comprised of relatively low lying structures, this tower block is completely out of keeping with the 'rhythm' of quayside buildings and most definitely is intended to mask the scale of the Tyne banks as they climb away from the river up to Walker Road. All other structures in the area are positioned to conform to the banks with no building being taller than the ones further up the hill, so to maintain the topography of the area, even with the buildings. The proposed tower completely changes this aesthetic of the Quayside and draws attention away from the heritage that we have and value in the city centre. In the proposed design pictures our heritage buildings in the area (Sailors Bethel, Toffee Factory - which was sympathetically restored, Glass House Bridge) are dwarfed by the tower. Even looking back towards the bridges your eye is not drawn to the curve of the river banks, the renovated Baltic, or even the Millennium Bridge, it's drawn to the tower block in the foreground. It is not a sympathetic design for the Quayside or the Ouseburn. The Visual Impact Assessment even states that the new development should not compete for attention with local landmark buildings and should have regard for adjacent character areas - this clearly does not. The separate Heritage Assessment states in Table 3 that there are a number of heritage assets that are likely to experience a high-degree of change as a result of the development, including the heritage buildings such as The Sailors Bethel, Toffee Factory , and Glasshouse Bridge - those which the Visual Impact Assessment said should not be impacted by any new development. Given that time and effort seems to have gone in to removing the Quayside's high-rise industrial buildings (i.e. Spillers Flour Mill), it seems strange for planning proposals to begin reinstating that high-rise, view blocking, out of character feel to our now reinvented, pedestrian friendly Quayside. The tower specifically will have significant impacts on shadows and sunlight to houses and businesses that are already established in the area. The proposed tower and town houses will go in to an area that already has poor transport links (no close metro, no current buses passing the site), with no plan to improve the infrastructure or provide sufficient parking for all of the residents of the complex (plus any guests!). Increases in air pollution, reducing air quality, should not be allowed in an area such as the Ouseburn Conservation Area where recreation is a key activity that goes on there. Ultimately, I do not think this new development is in keeping with the Quayside and Ouseburn character, or has been thought out in a sympathetic way to local landmarks, the topography of the area, and it's impact on overshadowing of other residential and commercial properties. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| The proposed development is grossly disproportionate to the other businesses and residences in the area, and will seriouslyharm their access to light and amenities; moreover, as this is a busy and prosperous area, bringing in such a large residential development would both overstrain the existing infrastructure (which would not be able to cope with such a massive increase in demand); and would bring in residents who would be less likely to tolerate noise levels from the well-established local entertainment venues which are such an integral part of the Ouseburn Valley, and which co-exist well with the people who already live and work in the Valley. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I would like to put forward my objection to the Malmo Quay development (2021.2404/02/EIA). I am a frequent visitor to the Ouseburn and have many apprehensions around the planned development, in fact I would go as far to say if you were planning the worst development for the area this would probably come high up on the list if not top. The awful design not with keeping with the local area and historic significance of the Ouseburn and its industrial past. The area at the minute is a vibrant and busy area home to listed and important buildings which make the area what it is (The Free Trade Inn, Tyne Bar, Toffee Factory and Ouseburn School). The negative aesthetics and vulgarity of the design, a huge ugly tower block lumped in a space to make as much money as possible without thought or feeling for the area just cannot be allowed to go ahead – no thought for the history of the buildings in the area, and the how a development could fit in so it was part of the landscape not dominating it and all its surroundings. It represents nothing of the area and these buildings are what make the Ouseburn a popular area. The parking issue and transport is one that doesn’t even seem to have been thought about by the developers – no buses currently serve that area – and the metro a massive climb up the hill. So cars being the main issue again without the development easily being able to provide a public transport option. There’s little to no parking in the area and with 60+ apartments the local area (residents and businesses) will be under enormous pressure on that front. It will fill up roads and make that pleasurable walk along the Tyne to the Ouseburn full of more unnecessary vehicles. The building development will dwarf local businesses and residential dwellings. Blocking sunlight to areas where people go to enjoy the outdoor entertainment or just a pint and a book. Casting a shadow over the area not just metaphorically speaking. Also last and most definitely not least in which is so important to me – and happened in so many places (the Cooperage to name only one in Newcastle) but the Tyne is famous and also the area for its live music. It wont take long before noise pollution is mentioned by residents and the shut your windows just doesn’t cut it with councils – licenses will be taken away and the famed live music venues of the Ouseburn will be gone forever. A devastating loss for the area and for Newcastle. We as Newcastle residents have one of the most vibrant and enjoyable communities in the country down there by the river – we have to be proud of it and let the area grow but in a way which benefits the area itself, the residents who live there and the people and businesses who work there. This development is pure greed with no thought to the above – there’s not a bit of the plans that have made me think the developers have stood back and thought what is best for the area. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I’m concerned that the proposed Malmo Quay development is going to have an adverse impact on roads and areas of Ouseburn, as a keen cyclist, I often like to cycle over to Ouseburn to enjoy some of the local heritage sights. I’m concerned that this building is going to increase traffic massively and cause danger to pedestrians and cyclists in the area. Given that there are no other transport links direct to that area, we are bound to see an increase in vehicles. This is only going to have a knock on effect to the environment and the air quality for people and wildlife in the area. Whilst you have proposed eventually building car parking, this is inadequate for the scale of the building you want to build. This will undoubtedly lead to residents parking unsafely and using local on street parking, again potentially creating dangerous situations for those other road users in Ouseburn and also users of the National cycle routes. I expect that a lot of local business generate income from cyclists using this route and I feel that the potentially dangerous situations caused by this building will force people to choose alternative routes, impacting businesses that have been in the area for decades. Also, the landscape of the Quayside and Ouseburn is known for some of the great buildings in Newcastle, I cannot see how Malmo Quay will adequately represent this or enhance the quayside in anyway. Considering the size of the proposed development, it will only take away from the great buildings that are along the Quayside, overshadowing them with it’s unnecessary size. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I am strongly opposed to these plans, in particular the tower block that forms a major part of the development. The tower block in particular is visually very unappealing, and not at all in keeping with the wider Ouseburn or Quayside areas. At present, the Ouseburn is the jewel in Newcastle's crown - this building with little to no aesthetic or architectural merit would certainly tarnish it. The scale of the development is also wildly inappropriate for the site. There are far too few parking spaces for the number of dwellings in the proposed plans, and overflow parking in the nearby streets and car parks would put a great strain on local infrastructure. This part of town is currently very popular with walkers and cyclists, and increased traffic as a result of the development would make the area a lot less safe, and less appealing, for those who currently enjoy walking or cycling through. Building a large number of homes in such close proximity to pre-existing entertainment venues would also be inappropriate. I understand that a report carried out by a renowned Environmental Acoustics Practice (on behalf of The Tyne Bar) has found that residents of the new development would undoubtedly have cause to complain about noise coming from local entertainment venues such as The Tyne Bar. Venues such as The Tyne Bar are a big part of the reason that people love the Ouseburn in the first place and are an important part of the local economy. Potential noise complaints would put the future of these well-loved local businesses at risk, as well as causing unpleasant living conditions for the people who choose to move into the new buildings. I also understand that there are no affordable homes included within the development - I don't think this is acceptable for any new housing development, especially one located in the East End of Newcastle, which has traditionally been a working class area of the city. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| This development will remove valuable community resources in the cycle hub. Something which is really important in a region where the population has high rates if health issues and low rates of active transportation. The development will spoil views and the skyline across the Quayside. The development will cause irreparable damage to the ouesburn area and the creative community in the area. The homes will not be affordable and are a form of social cleansing. By offering luxury accommodation while failing to offer any kind of solution to the lack of adequate and affordable homes in the area. Newcastle Council will be failing it's residents and actively participating in social cleansing. By allowing this development the Council will be demonstrating where their priorities lie and it is not with the needs of people in the area. Do the right thing | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| 2021/2404/01/EIA Malmo Quay Development Dear sir/madam, I write to object to the above development on several counts: - The increase in housing to the area will cause a tremendous strain on the infrastructure. There is very little parking, the nearest metro stop is a sizeable walk away and the streets feel quite unsafe for pedestrians anyway. - The topography of the Ouseburn Valley means there can be a lack of light and a feeling of open-space, which this development will only worsen. - I think the scale of the buildings, especially the height, is not in keeping with the surrounding buildings. This would surely become one of Newcastle's highest buildings, in an area without many similar towers. This is an entirely different situation to Hadrian's Tower which has similar sized buildings around it to prevent this. Thanks for your consideration Dr Sean Brennan & Ms Beth Williams 36 Grove Park Crescent, Gosforth, NE3 1BP | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| 2021/2404/01/EIA - Malmo Quay Development Comment I'd like to object to the Malmo Quay development proposed by PFP Igloo. I have several concerns about the potential development. As someone who lives nearby and has been visiting the Ouseburn area in various capacities (frequenting local businesses, historical tours e.g. Victoria Tunnel, social occasions and visiting members of the local community) for over 10 years, the proposed Malmo Quay development would be detrimental to the Ouseburn as: 1. The building, a proposed eighteen storey tower block, is not at all in keeping with the current surroundings of the Ouseburn, which has made excellent use of ex-industrial buildings to house local businesses and low-capacity housing developments. I believe that such a large, new building in a distinct contemporary style will prove to be an unwelcome aberration on the landscape of the Ouseburn, and will do irreparable damage to its' carefully preserved landscape. Opening up development of a high-density, modern tower block would be an eyesore as well as an ill-fitting addition to the Ouseburn. 2. The size of the building will considerably overshadow some areas of great importance to Newcastle's community, such as The Tyne Bar, The Cycle Hub, The Free Trade Inn and the surrounding establishments. Having utilised the Ouseburn's historic buildings and serving as excellent, time-honoured hospitality venues with considerable history in the community, enhanced by views of the Tyne and access to open skies and good weather, the existence of the Malmo Quay tower block would block the daylight and sunlight of some or all of these businesses, which would be detrimental to both their character and their clientele. 3. The proposed development would introduce a considerable number of inhabitants to an area that was not designed as a residential area. This would introduce considerably more cars, and would require car parking spaces to be constructed. In addition, links to local transport hubs are potentially ill-equipped to serve the number of potential inhabitants of the tower (Metro stations are a considerable distance away, and the area is currently only served by the Quaylink bus service), which would encourage more use of personal cars and on-street parking (the plans appear to show only 18 parking spaces for 62 apartments) - increasing both emissions and traffic to an area which is currently blessed by the relative lack of - leading to both a decline in air quality for those in the Ouseburn as well as noxious odors from cars. This runs contrary to Section 9 Paragraphs 104-113 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 4. The construction of the Malmo Quay building will be a considerable effort requiring a great deal of heavy machinery and construction equipment through the duration. This will result in a lot of noise and construction traffic to the area for an extended period of time. I and many friends see the Ouseburn area during the day as a place of refuge and quiet, and the disturbance and noise produced by that construction work would considerably harm the area throughout. 5. As the proposed tower block is considerably taller than any other building around it, it would overlook a large number of hospitality establishments as well as residential buildings in the area which would cause a loss of privacy of both inhabitants and those using local businesses. I would like to object to this development in the strongest possible terms, as I believe it would have a permanent deleterious effect on an area of notable history, heritage and character that I have been visiting frequently for over a decade. Sean Cotterill 141 Sackville Road Newcastle Upon Tyne Heaton NE6 5TD | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I would like to strongly object to this proposed development. The proposal has been ill thought out. The proposed block of flats is certainly not in keeping with the local area and does not take into consideration the impact on the local and wider community. Transport links are stretched as it is, increasing population before improving infrastructure is a clear oversight. A development such a this is not in keeping the Newcastle Councils SUP policy. The proposed development lies within an extreme flood risk zone, whilst efforts have been outlined in the proposal to manage surface water through green infrastructure it raises the question is this sort of development appropriate in an area already vulnerable to flooding? Within the proposal a connection will be made into the existing sewer system at an unrestricted rate. The nearest CSO that discharges into the Tyne spilled (releasing partially and untreated raw, sewerage) 5 times in 2020. It follows that increasing local population will increase the amount of sewerage that is released into the Tyne, surely this does not align with the councils sustainability goals and environmental policies? The geoenvironmental survey submitted with the application states a number of concerns with the development. Including the unsuitability of made ground for shallow foundations meaning deep foundations will be required. It also notes contamination of ground. Sinking of deep foundations on contaminated ground puts groundwater at risk of contamination further degrading the local environment. All considered, the impact on local and wider communities, environmental degradation alongside this development not fitting in with the councils planning policies; this application should be rejected. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I'd like to object to the scale and massing - it's an inappropriate development and will have a detrimental impact on local amenities. It will block daylight and sunlight that will have a negative affect on the wildlife in the area, whilst also having an impact on the local businesses who have big external areas where the sunlight will now be blocked. From a public health perspective, the traffic and congestion that this building will bring to an already busy area is very concerning. Finally, it's an absolute crude eye sore and will not fit in with the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I'd like to object to the scale and massing - it's an inappropriate development and will have a detrimental impact on local amenities. It will block daylight and sunlight that will have a negative effect on the wildlife in the area, whilst also having an impact on the local businesses who have big external areas where the sunlight will now be blocked. From a public health perspective, the traffic and congestion that this building will bring to an already busy area are very concerning. Finally, it's an absolute crude eye sore and will not fit in with the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I have read the application details and I consider the development does not meet numerous planning policies and will do little to enhance the Malmo Quay or the Ouseburn and indeed is detrimental to the area on the following grounds. The proposed development, largely owing to the tower block, represents over-development of the site in regards to traffic generation, lack of parking, lack of public transport as well as the overall scale of the development for the area. The application does not provide sufficient details as to how these impacts may be mitigated or how such issues can be addressed by the developer. The application does not address in sufficient detail how flood risk will be alleviated upstream or downstream of the Ouseburn's junction with the Tyne in an area where the Quay wall was not upgraded by the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation during the 1980's. Whilst the application covers Malmo Quay and part of Spillers Quay, the area eastwards of the Ouseburn, the plans suggest a phasing of development which misconstrues how the sequence of development will impact the locality, in particular the overall plans suggest parking will be partially addressed, whereas the detail shows that there is insufficient parking to meet present planning standards in the Malmo Quay part of the application. The site lies within the Tyne Gorge and the Council and English Heritage have already identified the area as important for the internationally renowned views and history of the area. The site lies just outside the Ouseburn Conservation area, any development of the site impacts the conservation Area. The Malmo Quays part of the site covered by the application is adversely impacted by Northumbria Water infrastructure associated with the interceptor sewer which poses a barrier to development without significant works to ameliorate and relocate that infrastructure. The area east of the Ouseburn is adversely impacted by the Quay Wall construction by the Port of Tyne Authority in the 19th and 20th centuries. The area has had no investment in flood defences to combat rising sea level threats since the Quay Wall was developed. The Malmo Quay site lies at the junction of the River Ouseburn and River Tyne, at the eastern end of the East Quayside development area developed in the 1980's and 1990's with support from TWDC. The area formerly comprised shipbuilding yards and later general freight and passenger port facilities based on a self scouring quay wall maintaining a deep water berth between the Guildhall and Spillers Wharf. Derelict by the 1980's, TWDC's development masterplan followed the Council's Quayside development strategy and saw a mixed use leisure, office and residential development, leaving the western end as undeveloped land, partly due to the NWA facilities. Sadly whilst the commercial hotel, office, parking and leisure developments were of relatively to very high quality, the housing developments have been of substantially lower quality in terms of design when compared to say St Peter's Basin, the King Street site's Blue Anchor Quay (1980's) and more recent developments on The Close and Forth Banks or even compared to Portland Green's student accommodation. The present application does little to attempt to reverse the decreasing standard of urban design along the Quayside frontage. The quality of the architectural design is low, of little or no merit, bears no relation to the traditional design forms of the area and has no endearing features in terms of urban design. The site to the west of the Ouseburn forms one of Newcastle's most iconic views of the Tyne Gorge with the sweep of the River taking in Gateshead Quays and the Bridges across the Tyne. The proposals detract from this iconic landscape in particular with a tower block. The design appears to have been taken from the artists impressions of how Salford Quays may eventually appear with a sloped tower block. The design proposals represent an unmitigated urban design disaster area. The scale and massing of the tower block bears no relationship to the topography and geography of the site or the urban form. The entire area shows a gentle rising form from the Quay Wall upwards to St Anne's Church and westwards rising to the Castle, Tyne Bridge, the mass of the City Centre punctuated by spires ranging from St Anne's to St Nicholas' Cathedral and relatively speaking low rise buildings forming a dramatic skyline. The site clearly requires a limit to the height of any development in this location in design terms to meet the objectives of the Tyne Gorge Study, to preserve the character of the Ouseburn and, indeed, the City Centre Conservation Area on which any tower block in this location will have a detrimental impact in terms of views of and views from both areas. The overall site will need to have regards to the proposed leisure development at Spillers Wharf, the Whey Aye Wheel and associated uses. Inappropriately designed housing use of the land will lead to conflict with leisure users. Indeed, given the character of the area, one must question the appropriateness of the site for purely residential use when a mixed use development would seem to have greater investment potential and the propensity for higher standards of design and sustainable use encouraging improved public transport in a highly valuable waterfront location which is now a rare opportunity on the Tyne. The proposals as they stand make little, indeed no apparent provision to assist with social or affordable housing need and as a purely residential development will contribute little towards improved or increased economic prosperity in the immediate area. The scheme provides little amenity for residents of the proposed development, no retail provision or facilities for households. Given the location of the proposed development, the developers seems to have given little thought as to how the area can contribute positively to the regeneration of the area. It lies between Gateshead Quays, The Quayside and Ouseburn and the proposed leisure uses of Spillers Wharf, The potential of the site lies in far more imaginative proposals that will provide greater economic benefit, vastly greater design benefit and an overall much greater regeneration benefit than the poor quality housing scheme which is proposed. I urge the Council to refuse the application and to call for more imaginative high quality proposals to develop these key waterfront sites that the City and region can be proud of. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| Ref Malmo Quay development (2021/2404/01/EIA) The current proposed design is wholly inappropriate. It is not sympathetic to the industrial history of the area & would impact on the enjoyment of a distinctive & world renowned area of the city. Additionally, a development of this size will have a huge impact in terms of blocking sunlight and casting a shadow including significant impact on existing businesses and residential properties. With regards to public transport, I believe this development would add further pressure to an already struggling & inadequate service. Links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. With regards to parking, it has been noted that the submitted plans for Malmo Quay appear to only show 18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block. This is woefully inadequate and guaranteed to add even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and will create potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route 72 which runs along the Quayside. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I completely object to the building of the Malmö Quay development. It will add no value to the area and will significantly harm the natural look of the area. Unlike the redevelopment of the Baltic flower mill on the opposite side of the river, this is not a sympathetic repurposing of an existing / abandoned building. It is made for profit and not in keeping with the area in its present state. This will add to congestion, pollution and generally spoils the whole look of the area. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| Objection to: Planning Application 2021/2404/01/EIA As a resident in the Malings I would like to object to this plan in the strongest terms. The lower Ouseburn area at present, through the work of Planning, the Trust, local volunteer groups, the community and small businesses, has developed an exceptional, vibrant environment for residents, visitors and businesses. It is a wonderful model and all parties involved in this development should be rightfully pleased with the fruits of their creative labours. The proposed development of an 18 storey residential tower block on Malmo is abhorrent in that it is completely at odds with the local architecture and the spirit and culture of this exceptional, but still fragile, environment. The planned tower block would not only be visually brutal and at odds with the architectural development of the Ouseburn valley, but also out of keeping with the heritage view of the Newcastle waterfront. The plan also conflicts with references in the Ouseburn Planning policy, heritage and conservation guidelines. But there's more to my objection than an architectural aberration. The practicalities also conflict with the area: There is woeful car parking planned for the development and with poor public transport and access to food shops (for example), residents generally require vehicles to shop. The concept that the majority of the proposed development's residents will be prepared to not have cars and catch the infrequent Quayside Runner bus service to go food shopping is fantasy. There will be many extra cars for the area's already over run parking. The additional traffic will lead to extremely dangerous parking and road conditions for cyclists and pedestrians. Similar plans to develop Spillers Quay will place a further burden on parking in future unless parking isn’t addressed now. Additionally, on a personal note, the ugly tower will block sunlight in the afternoon from my own property in the Malings and to the Malings generally. The plans for Malmo are shocking and not remotely harmonious with the architectural heritage of the Ouseburn valley or the Tyne waterfront. With additional housing plans for Spiller’s, Malmo can surely be developed as a beautiful open park/space with breathtaking views back to the Millennium and Tyne bridges and the baltic for the use of visitors, tourists and residents. This should not be an ugly, dense high rise cash grab to help a developer make short term money. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| From the research I’ve done about the building. Noise pollution will be a massive factor. Simply asking residents to close their windows will not be enough. Ouseburn is known for its live music culture and shouldn’t have to change. We have enough fancy flats that people can’t afford. Ouseburn doesn’t want them. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| From the research I’ve done about the building. Noise pollution will be a massive factor. Simply asking residents to close their windows will not be enough. Ouseburn is known for its live music culture and shouldn’t have to change. We have enough fancy flats that people can’t afford. Ouseburn doesn’t want them. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| From the research I’ve done about the building. Noise pollution will be a massive factor. Simply asking residents to close their windows will not be enough. Ouseburn is known for its live music culture and shouldn’t have to change. We have enough fancy flats that people can’t afford. Ouseburn doesn’t want them. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| Tatiana Alekseeva 76 st Annes quay Quayside NE1 3BB Hello, I strongly object against the proposed development, as it is enormous, huge and ugly looking, the cars will created huge traffic jams and air pollution, there is not enough parking space for all of the apartments proposed (less than 40%), it ruins the image of the Quayside. It looks too Modern and commercial, in my opinion aesthetically it is not harmonious with the rest of the Quayside area. Thank you for considering my objections. Best regards, Tatiana Alekseeva quayside resident | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| Objection to Malmo and Spillars Quay Development - 2021/2404/01/EIA: The proposed development is not in keeping with the surrounding area, neither in terms of scale, style or function. The Ouseburn area is home to many small businesses and listed buildings. The area is currently populated by older, often repurposed buildings that are generally no more than two stories tall. These buildings maintain a strong link to the area’s industrial past and do not consist of densely packed, new-build, residential properties. The proposed plan, consisting of a densely populated area of private dwellings and a large multi-story tower block, all built in a modern style at odds with existing nearby buildings, would drastically alter the topography and culture of the area and threaten the viability of many existing businesses. Local businesses, such as mechanics, engineering firms, venues and arts studios, thrive precisely because the area is not densely populated with residential properties. These businesses provide the unique environment that makes the area so valuable and they would struggle to find a home elsewhere in the city. The area currently provides a safe, open space, popular with pedestrians that frequent the local businesses and access the Newcastle quayside. There is currently little traffic, making it one of the few areas in this part of Newcastle away from busy roads and with limited noise and air pollution. This proposal would greatly increase the amount of traffic, both in Ouseburn and on the surrounding roads, thus increasing noise and air pollution while reducing the safety of pedestrians. If this proposal is approved, increased traffic is an inevitability, as the number of local residents will increase significantly and the area is not well served by the city's metro system. The nearest stations are around a mile away and all pedestrian routes to those stations are uphill. The proposal does not include plans for sufficient parking to accommodate the increased number of cars it will bring to the area. On-street parking is already limited and struggles to meet the needs of existing residents. The area of the proposed development is currently an integral part of the Hadrian’s Way path/cycle route, an official National Trail administered by Natural England. The route is one of the most popular in England, both with cyclists and pedestrians. Hadrian’s Way forms part of the coast-to-coast route, bringing a large number of visitors to the area throughout the year. Many local businesses are built around this, offering amenities and services aimed at cyclists and hikers. The proposed development, with the inevitable increase in traffic, loss of open space, and densely populated residential area, would significantly reduce the safety of those accessing the Hadrian’s Way route. This would in turn reduce the number of visitors to the area, having an adverse impact on local businesses. With Newcastle City Council investing in cycle routes throughout other areas of the city, and implementing measures to reduce the amount of traffic in and around the city, it would seem that this proposal is at odds with the council's current planning policies and their commitment to a greener, safer, more environmentally responsible city. The councils ‘Net Zero Newcastle - 2030 Action Plan’ lays out plans to increase ‘active travel’ and reduce traffic in Newcastle. This proposal, which will impact the accessibility of a major national cycle route and involve the demolition of the Cycle Hub, a well established community resource that encourages and enables cycling throughout the city, would only set back these plans. The Ouseburn area currently provides a unique cultural and economic benefit to the city. If approved, this proposal will greatly threaten the existing culture and value of the area while detrimentally affecting existing residents and visitors. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| As a local resident of Byker, I would like to object to the construction of application reference: 2021/2404/01/EIA, and request that the application be duly withdrawn. Its negative impact on the amenity of several other properties notwithstanding (two of which, Tyne Bar and The Free Trade Inn, will invariably be subject to loss of daylight, light pollution, and overshadowing from the tower) I feel strongly that keeping with the stylistic context and scale of the surrounding area is integral to maintaining the livelihood of both businesses and patrons near the location of the prospective tower. To say that application reference 2021/2404/01/EIA flies in the face of the stylistic context and scale of its surrounding area would be a stark understatement. Not only is the application not in keeping with its surrounding topographical landscape, but it is also an affront to the site's historical context (the quayside and Ouseburn are central hubs pertaining to Newcastle's industrial history. The application and others like it should be prevented, lest we kickstart a trend whose logical conclusion is the erasure of Newcastle's working cultural history by a bunch of neoliberal monoliths [like the application in question] that bare zero cultural significance to the area); it is also likely to generate complications caused by underground sewers and a water pumping station. In light of these problems, the application should be withdrawn, and in lieu of the energy and time expended through the construction of PfP Igloo’s tower, we should focus on supporting local community-led operations, for which the Ouseburn and surrounding areas are widely esteemed. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| As a local resident of Byker, I would like to object to the construction of application reference: 2021/2404/01/EIA, and request that the application be duly withdrawn. Its negative impact on the amenity of several other properties notwithstanding (two of which, Tyne Bar and The Free Trade Inn, will invariably be subject to loss of daylight, light pollution, and overshadowing from the tower) I feel strongly that keeping with the stylistic context and scale of the surrounding area is integral to maintaining the livelihood of both businesses and patrons near the location of the prospective tower. To say that application reference 2021/2404/01/EIA flies in the face of the stylistic context and scale of its surrounding area would be a stark understatement. Not only is the application not in keeping with its surrounding topographical landscape, but it is also an affront to the site's historical context (the quayside and Ouseburn are central hubs pertaining to Newcastle's industrial history. The application and others like it should be prevented, lest we kickstart a trend whose logical conclusion is the erasure of Newcastle's working cultural history by a bunch of neoliberal monoliths [like the application in question] that bare zero cultural significance to the area); it is also likely to generate complications caused by underground sewers and a water pumping station. In light of these problems, the application should be withdrawn, and in lieu of the energy and time expended through the construction of PfP Igloo’s tower, we should focus on supporting local community-led operations, for which the Ouseburn and surrounding areas are widely esteemed. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to this application as I feel it will negatively impact on the local area. The Ouseburn is becoming well known both locally and nationally as a place of great interest and diversity for both locals and tourists. This development will mean that this unique area is lost once again and the many small businesses that are currently thriving in this area will most likely be forced to close. We are living in very uncertain times, businesses closing, the cost of living is rising. I feel we need to preserve what we have, protect the local businesses and continue to keep the space alive for locals and tourists who are brining revenue into the city. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| To Whom It May Concern, Re: Planning Application Reference 2021/2404/01/EIA I write to register my objection and utter horror at the proposed Malmo Quay development. I absolutely implore you to refuse permission. The Ouseburn is a place that has been made special by its organic growth and development. This plan goes completely against that and will have a hugely detrimental effect in the area. My great grandparents lived and worked in the area. I frequent it often and have done for years. This proposed development will irreparably damage the feel, look and culture of the place. 1. Scale and massing, inappropriate development and impact on local amenity - The development is inappropriate in its excessive height. It will devastate current topography. Its design is not in-keeping with the historic buildings, many of them listed, in the area – buildings that are direct call-backs to the area’s proud industrial past. This development detracts from this, and does not respect or enhance its historic surroundings. The proposed development will significantly alter the sightline of, and prevent enjoyment of, historic local heritage sites including the Grade II Listed Ouseburn School, Sailors Bethal, Tyne Bar Public House, Toffee Factory and the iconic Glasshouse Bridge. 2. Daylight, sunlight and overshadowing - A building of this size will block sunlight for and cast unsuitable shadows on residential properties including but not limited to Free Trade Inn and Tyne Bar. It will cast shadows on important local focal points. The arguments made that the impact on sunlight to neighbouring properties on the basis that some of them gave balconies is not excessive is proposterous. The number of properties affected in somewhat by this development is substantial. 3. Quality of Design - It’s in no way in keeping with the area. It’s not sympathetic to the surrounding area. Its scale, height and brutalist design are not sympathetic or in keeping with the historic, red-brick industrial heritage buildings of the Quayside and Ouseburn area. It looks like a cheesegrater - hardly in keeping with beautifully proportioned Victorian and early C20th buildings. 4. Highways, transport, parking, and air quality + traffic generation - Road access to the area is limited. There is little to no public transport that serves the area. When I visit Ouseburn, especially this area, taxis cannot access the road properly and must pick up from Brinkburn Brewery. The current road infrastructure (which itself is a result of the area’s older industrial heritage character) will not cope with a residential development of this size. The development is at the bottom of a very steep bank. The nearest Metro stations are substantial walks away. The submitted plans for Malmo Quay appear to only show 18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block, woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route 72 which runs along the Quayside. If I am driving in the area I already find it incredibly difficult to find an appropriate place to park. It's important to remember that the proposed 73 Parking Spaces on Spillers Wharf are not actually part of this application. Even then, at best they won't be available for at least 3-4 years, will also have to service the 76 apartments potentially being build there and there's a fully functioning and already overpressured carpark being removed to create that site. Please refuse permission for this development. I am someone who has used and appreciated the area all my life. I know the area well (and live a short walk away), visit it very regularly and many my family were originally from this area. My great great grandfather, an Officer in the First World War, is remembered in the roll of honour at St Anne’s, my great grandparents lived almost all their lives in the parish. The Ouseburn is an important historic area and its character, integral to its position as one of the best cultural and leisure communities in the country, must be maintained. The impact of this development, as outlined above, will decimate this and have untold damage on the local area. I have also sent this objection via email, so please disregard the duplication. Yours faithfully, Esther Beadle (Address and email supplied but not for publication) 51 Whitefield Terrace, Heaton, NE6 5DU | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I live on Walker Road as a young professional, proudly born in Denton Burn, passionate about my city. The quayside has been my cycle path to work to ADM pressings, my path to walk whilst walking Hadrian’s Walk, and my place to walk with friends and family. I am passionate about Byker – having worked there for two years, and about Ouseburn, having worked there in an one of the many flourishing independent businesses. I understand the need for our city to balance heritage and progress. I live and work locally, and believe Newcastle to be a vibrant city, and have always believed that our City Council would prioritise people and opportunities and that our City Council would be want to lead the way on sustainable, progressive living. I object to this proposed planning (both the Malmo Quay and Spillers Quay sections) on the basis that it is not sustainable, environmentally progressive housing, nor is it affordable local housing, nor does it enhance the local area. As a local resident involved in a many community projects, neither I, nor my friends have been invited to any community consultations by Igloo, which I believe is one of the key reasons why Igloo was invited to tender for this proposal. I object on the basis this the current design is an eyesore and monstrosity – and completely out of step with the landscape. I also object on account that these is inadequate parking, and the already small area for pedestrians, local residents and cyclists will be further compromised to potentially a very dangerous point. This is appalling design, an ill thought through proposal and I hope that Newcastle City Council will do the right thing and deny this application. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to the Malmo Quay development, as an 18-storey building in this surrounding will look totally out of place, as most houses and developments are low-rise, and will spoil the aesthetic in this area. There will be traffic and parking problems. The number of cars will increase and the roads are too small to cope with this volume of traffic. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to the proposed developments on the Spillers and Malmo Quays for the following reasons. The height of the proposed tower block would dominate the attractive and carefully curated skyline of the riverside, which is of historic value as well as being a sight enjoyed by residents and visitors to the city. Views of the riverside currently enjoyed by people living on and visiting the section of the the riverside from the Swing Bridge eastwards would be irrevocably damaged. The building would also block light from surrounding residential and commercial buildings. The design of the housing on the Spillers Quay is ugly - the grey block-like structures will do nothing to enhance the area. In addition, any residents living on this site would have their quality of life blighted by the adjacent development of the Wheel. The inevitable increase in motor traffic to this area would lead to congestion and a far less pleasant experience for people coming to enjoy the Ouseburn area as well as making the roads more dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians. The impact on wildlife is of great concern to me. Construction will inevitably cause pollution and damage the habitat of the numerous protected species living in and around the burn and the river. And there is no guarantee that wildlife pushed out during construction would ever return. I urge you to reject this application on the grounds of its detrimental impact on this much-valued part of our city. | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| Objection 2021/2404/01/EIA Malmo Quay As a local resident of Ouseburn, in one of Igloo's own previous developments (The Mailings) I was shocked to see the proposal for this tower block. It absolutely contradicts all the values/aesthetics from previous developments in the area and to me, and looks like a last ditch attempt to cram as many people into the site as possible as opposed to complimenting the surroundings. This site should be used to add real 'value' to the area and surrounding community, as oppoosed to seemingly just in the financial sense. - The size and height of the tower is outrageous in terms of aethetics. It sticks out amongst the more subdued landscape of the Ouseburn side of the river, and completely dwarfs all the nearby buildings and architecture. The toffee factory is a beautiful landmark walking along the canal, which will now be overshadowed by the silouette of this block. The steeped history and heritage of the nearby architecture will lose a lot of their impact with this looming behind them. Also, I appreciate existing views are not neccesarily of concern, but the iconic view from The Free Trade Inn which we are so fond of would be forever tarnished and lost. - Mentionging the local pubs; This many residents crammed near to the Tyne Bar & Free Trade Inn surely will jeopardise the possibility of ongoing music & live events in the area? We moved to the area specifically to be around such things like Sunday gigs at the Tyne Bar, live bands and events ... and having seen it happen to places like the Cooperage, we don't want to see too many residents in the area eventually turn against the noise from these, and other nearby venues which capture the spirit and heart of Ouseburn life. - As someone who regularly walks along the canal and lives alongside it I'm also very fearful of daylight/sunlight/overshadowing. This monstrosity will now act like a giant sundial, occasionally obscuring the sunshine during pleasant walks in the area. Will this then also impact the ecology & nature residing on the canal? Swans nest yearly, along with other widlife, on the canal in front of the Toffee Factory. As a Malings resident with a roof terrace near the canal being my only outdoor space, I'm also fearful I may have the amount of sunlight in my outdoor space jeopardised. - Also for these 73 dwelings, it seems no parking has been considered? We live in the neighbouring Malings and know parking is very hard to come by in the area. With Steenberg Yard and new flats being built on the Quay Timber site, adding 73 apartments with little consideration for parking in the area is just adding to the ongoing problem in the area. It's going to create a huge amount of frustration and uneccessary traffic in what I'd consider a suburban area. - Additionally, as a volunteer of the Tyne Rivers Trust, who regularly litter picks in the area, it seems little to no consideration has been given to the landscape and ecology adding this many homes in such a small area. Surely this will just add to ongoing litter issues around the community? I'm really concerned if this tower block goes ahead it will begin the decline of the Ouseburn community I treasure so dearly. A considered development in the area will truly add 'value' to the community but this large tower block is certainly not that. - Will Howe | 16/02/2022 | Object |
| Thanks for the opportunity to submit comments in objections to this hybrid application 2021/2404/01/EIA. I understand objections must take into account relevant planning issues as expressed in a range of council policies. As a local resident, whilst i have sought to become aware of policies outlined in Planning For the Future, I'm not expert in these areas so will seek to express my own objections in terms of the appropriateness of this development in relation to its location, the quality of design and its impact both on the local area and the city in general. I'm sure the council are becoming aware of the strength of feeling against this proposal. IN terms of appropriateness of design for this locality and in particular the huge visibility in terms of city landscape of its location at this point of the bend of the river, it is so out of keeping with the sympathetic nature of Igloos previous projects along Ouseburn that it literally beggars belief. I would also like to express concern at the nature of a hybrid application in that i understand that approving the designs for Malmo Quay will also set the perameters for height, massing, proposed access routes and public/private spaces at Spillers Wharf. I would like to object to this in the strongest terms as a resident of Ouseburn Wharf in that without a detailed planning application to comment on I cannot be confident that potential loss of sunlight, overshadowing, transport or parking won't impact upon me and other residents directly. This feels utterly wrong as it is clear there will be at least some impact from these developments and yet passage of the application will seriously mitigate our right at a future point to object to the specific impact of these when the final proposal for Spillers Wharf is presented. I would also implore the Council to consider the cultural and heritage impact of a development of this scale and this design. Specifically with regard to Spillers Wharf - this is such a key and special location for the City, with its aspect of the river , its access to the river, its location as an entry point to Ouseburn and as a point along Hadrian's Way. Excessive, massed residential build upon this beautiful location, no matter how well designed (and whilst i appreciate this is an aesthetic consideration, it is hard to see how the rectangular boxes - visible from all along the Quayside and therefore a key feature of the river landscape - could be described as well designed) will inevitably impact upon the access that residents of the city will have to access the river and enjoy the impact of the river view. I object that without specific opportunities to consider the impact upon limiting access and viewpoints (and the River is of course a shared resource), then the hybrid proposal could prove potentially disasterous once these implicit perameters are fixed. In general terms I know how much the Council values the cultural and economic development of Ouseburn as a specific city location. It has become, in its own way, nationally famous. It attracts visitors yet it's cultural value is also boosted by it being something of a "hidden gem". It has become a special place, carefully nurtred so with Council support, but made especially so by the mix of businesses, bars, cafes and other enterprises that have made the location as vibrant as it is. In many ways it is unique nationally - there are other places that may be comparable (Kelham Island in Sheffield for example, or other numerous "cultural quarters" in cities around the UK). These are not "nice to have" localities but completely valuable to a city's diversity of culture, identity and attractiveness to visitors, precisely because they are so rare. And the economic/cultural maintenance of such locations is delicate. My concern is that by over residentialising Spillers Wharf and Malmo Quay, at the scale and mass proposed, then that delicate balance is forvever and what has made Ouseburn such a special location will be forever lost. This does not seem facetious. I understand Igloo have sought to pre-empt concerns about loss of the special identity of Ouseburn by reassuring the businesses and bars of the area that prospective residents of Malmo Quay will be made aware of music/noise/cultural aspects prior to moving in - in the sense that by doing so their development will not then impact. This seems utterly disingenuous. Local businesses like the Tyne Bar are an essential part of what makes Ouseburn special. The Tyne Bar is known for music - limited usually to Sunday afternoons, but undoubtedly part of the vibrancy of the area. Of course, Igloo cannot take any such precautions that would deny a future resident the right to make a noise complaint. Given the closeness of the Tyne Bar to the Malmo development it seems inevitable that such a complaint or series of complaints will be upheld, with the consequence of the Tyne Bar's current business being impacted and part of what makes Ouseburn great being lost because of an inappropriate development. The consultation on this development has been extremely poor. Infact i would contend that the understandable focus on the 18 storey tower block , which is obviously such an eye grabbingly bold development, has meant that many have simply not noted the hybrid nature of the development and teh uncertain and much less clear impact on the equally important location of Spillers Quay. This just feels wrong in every respect. If these important city locations are to be developed residentially, we must have full visibility of what is being proposed. This feel particularly important given that we know how challenging the Malmo sight is to develop on. My concern is that any structural issues subsequently encountered impacting on the viability of Malmo development inevitably lead to further development of Spillers Wharf over which we will have less opportunity to comment and manage the impact of if the hybrid application has already green lighted this. I remain utterly unconvinced that a proposal of this type - with £400,000 flats and £700,000 tower block penthouses as a key feature, etc, does anything to address demand for affordable housing across the city. It is the scale, massing and inappropriate design of the hybrid application that are just one of the many grounds upon which it will be rejected. In particular, we understand that in order to make the development economically viable, it must be at this scale. If agreed, the Council must accept that they are inevitably changing fundamentally and irreversibly changing the nature of this part of the city. Residential development at a lesser scale, more appropriately sized, would of course have less impact on the culture and environment of Ouseburn and this part of the Quayside. If this is deemed to be uneconomic for the developers, then surely it is not an appropriate are for this type of residential development and all of us - planners, developers, residents and local businesses should go back to the drawing board and consider appropriate, exciting, forward thinking developments that harness what is utterly unique about this area. Igloos proposals fundamentally fail this challenge and I implore the council reject this proposal and require something better to be put forward. Just as a last point - i realise that response to design is an aesthetic one and i have no doubt there will be some who consider the idea of an 18 storey tower at this point of the bend in the Tyne to be an exciting one. But why here? Why at this point of the river as it curves, it just seems jarring, so out of place with anything on this location before. It will dominate the skyline and will be divisive for generations. In many ways a much better location would be just further up the river (the location identified for the Eye seems more appropriate) as it would be less impactful visibly. And it is not only the tower but the deeply unattractive low rise rectangular blocks that seem such a disappointing way to densely clutter up what is currently a beautiful, tranquil and historically precious area of the Tyne. Please, please reject this. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| Thanks for the opportunity to submit comments in objections to this hybrid application 2021/2404/01/EIA. I understand objections must take into account relevant planning issues as expressed in a range of council policies. As a local resident, whilst i have sought to become aware of policies outlined in Planning For the Future, I'm not expert in these areas so will seek to express my own objections in terms of the appropriateness of this development in relation to its location, the quality of design and its impact both on the local area and the city in general. I'm sure the council are becoming aware of the strength of feeling against this proposal. IN terms of appropriateness of design for this locality and in particular the huge visibility in terms of city landscape of its location at this point of the bend of the river, it is so out of keeping with the sympathetic nature of Igloos previous projects along Ouseburn that it literally beggars belief. I would also like to express concern at the nature of a hybrid application in that i understand that approving the designs for Malmo Quay will also set the perameters for height, massing, proposed access routes and public/private spaces at Spillers Wharf. I would like to object to this in the strongest terms as a resident of Ouseburn Wharf in that without a detailed planning application to comment on I cannot be confident that potential loss of sunlight, overshadowing, transport or parking won't impact upon me and other residents directly. This feels utterly wrong as it is clear there will be at least some impact from these developments and yet passage of the application will seriously mitigate our right at a future point to object to the specific impact of these when the final proposal for Spillers Wharf is presented. I would also implore the Council to consider the cultural and heritage impact of a development of this scale and this design. Specifically with regard to Spillers Wharf - this is such a key and special location for the City, with its aspect of the river , its access to the river, its location as an entry point to Ouseburn and as a point along Hadrian's Way. Excessive, massed residential build upon this beautiful location, no matter how well designed (and whilst i appreciate this is an aesthetic consideration, it is hard to see how the rectangular boxes - visible from all along the Quayside and therefore a key feature of the river landscape - could be described as well designed) will inevitably impact upon the access that residents of the city will have to access the river and enjoy the impact of the river view. I object that without specific opportunities to consider the impact upon limiting access and viewpoints (and the River is of course a shared resource), then the hybrid proposal could prove potentially disasterous once these implicit perameters are fixed. In general terms I know how much the Council values the cultural and economic development of Ouseburn as a specific city location. It has become, in its own way, nationally famous. It attracts visitors yet it's cultural value is also boosted by it being something of a "hidden gem". It has become a special place, carefully nurtred so with Council support, but made especially so by the mix of businesses, bars, cafes and other enterprises that have made teh location as vibrant as it is. In many ways it is unique nationally - there are other places that may be comparable (Kelham Island in Sheffield for example, or other numerous "cultural quarters" in cities around the UK). These are not "nice to have" localities but completely valuable to a city's diversity of culture, identity and attractiveness to visitors, precisely because they are so rare. And the economic/cultural maintenance of such locations is delicate. My concern is that by over residentialising Spillers Wharf and Malmo Quay, at the scale and mass proposed, then that delicate balance is forvever and what has made Ouseburn such a special location will be forever lost. This does not seem facetious. I understand Igloo have sought to pre-empt concerns about loss of the special identity of Ouseburn by reassuring the businesses and bars of the area that prospective residents of Malmo Quay will be made aware of music/noise/cultural aspects prior to moving in - in the sense that by doing so their development will not then impact. This seems utterly disingenuous. Local businesses like the Tyne Bar are an essential part of what makes Ouseburn special. The Tyne Bar is known for music - limited usually to Sunday afternoons, but undoubtedly part of the vibrancy of the area. Of course, Igloo cannot take any such precautions that would deny a future resident the right to make a noise complaint. Given the closeness of the Tyne Bar to the Malmo development it seems inevitable that such a complaint or series of complaints will be upheld, with the consequence of the Tyne Bar's current business being impacted and part of what makes Ouseburn great being lost because of an inappropriate development. The consultation on this development has been extremely poor. Infact i would contend that the understandable focus on the 18 storey tower block , which is obviously such an eye grabbingly bold development, has meant that many have simply not noted the hybrid nature of the development and teh uncertain and much less clear impact on the equally important location of Spillers Quay. This just feels wrong in every respect. If these important city locations are to be developed residentially, we must have full visibility of what is being proposed. This feel particularly important given that we know how challenging the Malmo sight is to develop on. My concern is that any structural issues subsequently encountered impacting on the viability of Malmo development inevitably lead to further development of Spillers Wharf over which we will have less opportunity to comment and manage the impact of if the hybrid application has already green lighted this. I remain utterly unconvinced that a proposal of this type - with £400,000 flats and £700,000 tower block penthouses as a key feature, etc, does anything to address demand for affordable housing across the city. It is the scale, massing and inappropriate design of the hybrid application that are just one of the many grounds upon which it will be rejected. In particular, we understand that in order to make the development economically viable, it must be at this scale. If agreed, the Council must accept that they are inevitably changing fundamentally and irreversibly changing the nature of this part of the city. Residential development at a lesser scale, more appropriately sized, would of course have less impact on the culture and environment of Ouseburn and this part of the Quayside. If this is deemed to be uneconomic for the developers, then surely it is not an appropriate are for this type of residential development and all of us - planners, developers, residents and local businesses should go back to the drawing board and consider appropriate, exciting, forward thinking developments that harness what is utterly unique about this area. Igloos proposals fundamentally fail this challenge and I implore the council reject this proposal and require something better to be put forward. Just as a last point - i realise that response to design is an aesthetic one and i have no doubt there will be some who consider the idea of an 18 storey tower at this point of the bend in the Tyne to be an exciting one. But why here? Why at this point of the river as it curves, it just seems jarring, so out of place with anything on this location before. It will dominate the skyline and will be divisive for generations. In many ways a much better location would be just further up the river (the location identified for the Eye seems more appropriate) as it would be less impactful visibly. And it is not only the tower but the deeply unattractive low rise rectangular blocks that seem such a disappointing way to densely clutter up what is currently a beautiful, tranquil and historically precious area of the Tyne. Please, please reject this. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| Thanks for the opportunity to submit comments in objections to this hybrid application 2021/2404/01/EIA. I understand objections must take into account relevant planning issues as expressed in a range of council policies. As a local resident, whilst i have sought to become aware of policies outlined in Planning For the Future, I'm not expert in these areas so will seek to express my own objections in terms of the appropriateness of this development in relation to its location, the quality of design and its impact both on the local area and the city in general. I'm sure the council are becoming aware of the strength of feeling against this proposal. IN terms of appropriateness of design for this locality and in particular the huge visibility in terms of city landscape of its location at this point of the bend of the river, it is so out of keeping with the sympathetic nature of Igloos previous projects along Ouseburn that it literally beggars belief. I would also like to express concern at the nature of a hybrid application in that i understand that approving the designs for Malmo Quay will also set the perameters for height, massing, proposed access routes and public/private spaces at Spillers Wharf. I would like to object to this in the strongest terms as a resident of Ouseburn Wharf in that without a detailed planning application to comment on I cannot be confident that potential loss of sunlight, overshadowing, transport or parking won't impact upon me and other residents directly. This feels utterly wrong as it is clear there will be at least some impact from these developments and yet passage of the application will seriously mitigate our right at a future point to object to the specific impact of these when the final proposal for Spillers Wharf is presented. I would also implore the Council to consider the cultural and heritage impact of a development of this scale and this design. Specifically with regard to Spillers Wharf - this is such a key and special location for the City, with its aspect of the river , its access to the river, its location as an entry point to Ouseburn and as a point along Hadrian's Way. Excessive, massed residential build upon this beautiful location, no matter how well designed (and whilst i appreciate this is an aesthetic consideration, it is hard to see how the rectangular boxes - visible from all along the Quayside and therefore a key feature of the river landscape - could be described as well designed) will inevitably impact upon the access that residents of the city will have to access the river and enjoy the impact of the river view. I object that without specific opportunities to consider the impact upon limiting access and viewpoints (and the River is of course a shared resource), then the hybrid proposal could prove potentially disasterous once these implicit perameters are fixed. In general terms I know how much the Council values the cultural and economic development of Ouseburn as a specific city location. It has become, in its own way, nationally famous. It attracts visitors yet it's cultural value is also boosted by it being something of a "hidden gem". It has become a special place, carefully nurtred so with Council support, but made especially so by the mix of businesses, bars, cafes and other enterprises that have made teh location as vibrant as it is. In many ways it is unique nationally - there are other places that may be comparable (Kelham Island in Sheffield for example, or other numerous "cultural quarters" in cities around the UK). These are not "nice to have" localities but completely valuable to a city's diversity of culture, identity and attractiveness to visitors, precisely because they are so rare. And the economic/cultural maintenance of such locations is delicate. My concern is that by over residentialising Spillers Wharf and Malmo Quay, at the scale and mass proposed, then that delicate balance is forvever and what has made Ouseburn such a special location will be forever lost. This does not seem facetious. I understand Igloo have sought to pre-empt concerns about loss of the special identity of Ouseburn by reassuring the businesses and bars of the area that prospective residents of Malmo Quay will be made aware of music/noise/cultural aspects prior to moving in - in the sense that by doing so their development will not then impact. This seems utterly disingenuous. Local businesses like the Tyne Bar are an essential part of what makes Ouseburn special. The Tyne Bar is known for music - limited usually to Sunday afternoons, but undoubtedly part of the vibrancy of the area. Of course, Igloo cannot take any such precautions that would deny a future resident the right to make a noise complaint. Given the closeness of the Tyne Bar to the Malmo development it seems inevitable that such a complaint or series of complaints will be upheld, with the consequence of the Tyne Bar's current business being impacted and part of what makes Ouseburn great being lost because of an inappropriate development. The consultation on this development has been extremely poor. Infact i would contend that the understandable focus on the 18 storey tower block , which is obviously such an eye grabbingly bold development, has meant that many have simply not noted the hybrid nature of the development and teh uncertain and much less clear impact on the equally important location of Spillers Quay. This just feels wrong in every respect. If these important city locations are to be developed residentially, we must have full visibility of what is being proposed. This feel particularly important given that we know how challenging the Malmo sight is to develop on. My concern is that any structural issues subsequently encountered impacting on the viability of Malmo development inevitably lead to further development of Spillers Wharf over which we will have less opportunity to comment and manage the impact of if the hybrid application has already green lighted this. I remain utterly unconvinced that a proposal of this type - with £400,000 flats and £700,000 tower block penthouses as a key feature, etc, does anything to address demand for affordable housing across the city. It is the scale, massing and inappropriate design of the hybrid application that are just one of the many grounds upon which it will be rejected. In particular, we understand that in order to make the development economically viable, it must be at this scale. If agreed, the Council must accept that they are inevitably changing fundamentally and irreversibly changing the nature of this part of the city. Residential development at a lesser scale, more appropriately sized, would of course have less impact on the culture and environment of Ouseburn and this part of the Quayside. If this is deemed to be uneconomic for the developers, then surely it is not an appropriate are for this type of residential development and all of us - planners, developers, residents and local businesses should go back to the drawing board and consider appropriate, exciting, forward thinking developments that harness what is utterly unique about this area. Igloos proposals fundamentally fail this challenge and I implore the council reject this proposal and require something better to be put forward. Just as a last point - i realise that response to design is an aesthetic one and i have no doubt there will be some who consider the idea of an 18 storey tower at this point of the bend in the Tyne to be an exciting one. But why here? Why at this point of the river as it curves, it just seems jarring, so out of place with anything on this location before. It will dominate the skyline and will be divisive for generations. In many ways a much better location would be just further up the river (the location identified for the Eye seems more appropriate) as it would be less impactful visibly. And it is not only the tower but the deeply unattractive low rise rectangular blocks that seem such a disappointing way to densely clutter up what is currently a beautiful, tranquil and historically precious area of the Tyne. Please, please reject this. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| Thanks for the opportunity to submit comments in objections to this hybrid application 2021/2404/01/EIA. I understand objections must take into account relevant planning issues as expressed in a range of council policies. As a local resident, whilst i have sought to become aware of policies outlined in Planning For the Future, I'm not expert in these areas so will seek to express my own objections in terms of the appropriateness of this development in relation to its location, the quality of design and its impact both on the local area and the city in general. I'm sure the council are becoming aware of the strength of feeling against this proposal. IN terms of appropriateness of design for this locality and in particular the huge visibility in terms of city landscape of its location at this point of the bend of the river, it is so out of keeping with the sympathetic nature of Igloos previous projects along Ouseburn that it literally beggars belief. I would also like to express concern at the nature of a hybrid application in that i understand that approving the designs for Malmo Quay will also set the perameters for height, massing, proposed access routes and public/private spaces at Spillers Wharf. I would like to object to this in the strongest terms as a resident of Ouseburn Wharf in that without a detailed planning application to comment on I cannot be confident that potential loss of sunlight, overshadowing, transport or parking won't impact upon me and other residents directly. This feels utterly wrong as it is clear there will be at least some impact from these developments and yet passage of the application will seriously mitigate our right at a future point to object to the specific impact of these when the final proposal for Spillers Wharf is presented. I would also implore the Council to consider the cultural and heritage impact of a development of this scale and this design. Specifically with regard to Spillers Wharf - this is such a key and special location for the City, with its aspect of the river , its access to the river, its location as an entry point to Ouseburn and as a point along Hadrian's Way. Excessive, massed residential build upon this beautiful location, no matter how well designed (and whilst i appreciate this is an aesthetic consideration, it is hard to see how the rectangular boxes - visible from all along the Quayside and therefore a key feature of the river landscape - could be described as well designed) will inevitably impact upon the access that residents of the city will have to access the river and enjoy the impact of the river view. I object that without specific opportunities to consider the impact upon limiting access and viewpoints (and the River is of course a shared resource), then the hybrid proposal could prove potentially disasterous once these implicit perameters are fixed. In general terms I know how much the Council values the cultural and economic development of Ouseburn as a specific city location. It has become, in its own way, nationally famous. It attracts visitors yet it's cultural value is also boosted by it being something of a "hidden gem". It has become a special place, carefully nurtred so with Council support, but made especially so by the mix of businesses, bars, cafes and other enterprises that have made teh location as vibrant as it is. In many ways it is unique nationally - there are other places that may be comparable (Kelham Island in Sheffield for example, or other numerous "cultural quarters" in cities around the UK). These are not "nice to have" localities but completely valuable to a city's diversity of culture, identity and attractiveness to visitors, precisely because they are so rare. And the economic/cultural maintenance of such locations is delicate. My concern is that by over residentialising Spillers Wharf and Malmo Quay, at the scale and mass proposed, then that delicate balance is forvever and what has made Ouseburn such a special location will be forever lost. This does not seem facetious. I understand Igloo have sought to pre-empt concerns about loss of the special identity of Ouseburn by reassuring the businesses and bars of the area that prospective residents of Malmo Quay will be made aware of music/noise/cultural aspects prior to moving in - in the sense that by doing so their development will not then impact. This seems utterly disingenuous. Local businesses like the Tyne Bar are an essential part of what makes Ouseburn special. The Tyne Bar is known for music - limited usually to Sunday afternoons, but undoubtedly part of the vibrancy of the area. Of course, Igloo cannot take any such precautions that would deny a future resident the right to make a noise complaint. Given the closeness of the Tyne Bar to the Malmo development it seems inevitable that such a complaint or series of complaints will be upheld, with the consequence of the Tyne Bar's current business being impacted and part of what makes Ouseburn great being lost because of an inappropriate development. The consultation on this development has been extremely poor. Infact i would contend that the understandable focus on the 18 storey tower block , which is obviously such an eye grabbingly bold development, has meant that many have simply not noted the hybrid nature of the development and teh uncertain and much less clear impact on the equally important location of Spillers Quay. This just feels wrong in every respect. If these important city locations are to be developed residentially, we must have full visibility of what is being proposed. This feel particularly important given that we know how challenging the Malmo sight is to develop on. My concern is that any structural issues subsequently encountered impacting on the viability of Malmo development inevitably lead to further development of Spillers Wharf over which we will have less opportunity to comment and manage the impact of if the hybrid application has already green lighted this. I remain utterly unconvinced that a proposal of this type - with £400,000 flats and £700,000 tower block penthouses as a key feature, etc, does anything to address demand for affordable housing across the city. It is the scale, massing and inappropriate design of the hybrid application that are just one of the many grounds upon which it will be rejected. In particular, we understand that in order to make the development economically viable, it must be at this scale. If agreed, the Council must accept that they are inevitably changing fundamentally and irreversibly changing the nature of this part of the city. Residential development at a lesser scale, more appropriately sized, would of course have less impact on the culture and environment of Ouseburn and this part of the Quayside. If this is deemed to be uneconomic for the developers, then surely it is not an appropriate are for this type of residential development and all of us - planners, developers, residents and local businesses should go back to the drawing board and consider appropriate, exciting, forward thinking developments that harness what is utterly unique about this area. Igloos proposals fundamentally fail this challenge and I implore the council reject this proposal and require something better to be put forward. Just as a last point - i realise that response to design is an aesthetic one and i have no doubt there will be some who consider the idea of an 18 storey tower at this point of the bend in the Tyne to be an exciting one. But why here? Why at this point of the river as it curves, it just seems jarring, so out of place with anything on this location before. It will dominate the skyline and will be divisive for generations. In many ways a much better location would be just further up the river (the location identified for the Eye seems more appropriate) as it would be less impactful visibly. And it is not only the tower but the deeply unattractive low rise rectangular blocks that seem such a disappointing way to densely clutter up what is currently a beautiful, tranquil and historically precious area of the Tyne. Please, please reject this. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| Thanks for the opportunity to submit comments in objections to this hybrid application 2021/2404/01/EIA. I understand objections must take into account relevant planning issues as expressed in a range of council policies. As a local resident, whilst i have sought to become aware of policies outlined in Planning For the Future, I'm not expert in these areas so will seek to express my own objections in terms of the appropriateness of this development in relation to its location, the quality of design and its impact both on the local area and the city in general. I'm sure the council are becoming aware of the strength of feeling against this proposal. IN terms of appropriateness of design for this locality and in particular the huge visibility in terms of city landscape of its location at this point of the bend of the river, it is so out of keeping with the sympathetic nature of Igloos previous projects along Ouseburn that it literally beggars belief. I would also like to express concern at the nature of a hybrid application in that i understand that approving the designs for Malmo Quay will also set the perameters for height, massing, proposed access routes and public/private spaces at Spillers Wharf. I would like to object to this in the strongest terms as a resident of Ouseburn Wharf in that without a detailed planning application to comment on I cannot be confident that potential loss of sunlight, overshadowing, transport or parking won't impact upon me and other residents directly. This feels utterly wrong as it is clear there will be at least some impact from these developments and yet passage of the application will seriously mitigate our right at a future point to object to the specific impact of these when the final proposal for Spillers Wharf is presented. I would also implore the Council to consider the cultural and heritage impact of a development of this scale and this design. Specifically with regard to Spillers Wharf - this is such a key and special location for the City, with its aspect of the river , its access to the river, its location as an entry point to Ouseburn and as a point along Hadrian's Way. Excessive, massed residential build upon this beautiful location, no matter how well designed (and whilst i appreciate this is an aesthetic consideration, it is hard to see how the rectangular boxes - visible from all along the Quayside and therefore a key feature of the river landscape - could be described as well designed) will inevitably impact upon the access that residents of the city will have to access the river and enjoy the impact of the river view. I object that without specific opportunities to consider the impact upon limiting access and viewpoints (and the River is of course a shared resource), then the hybrid proposal could prove potentially disasterous once these implicit perameters are fixed. In general terms I know how much the Council values the cultural and economic development of Ouseburn as a specific city location. It has become, in its own way, nationally famous. It attracts visitors yet it's cultural value is also boosted by it being something of a "hidden gem". It has become a special place, carefully nurtred so with Council support, but made especially so by the mix of businesses, bars, cafes and other enterprises that have made teh location as vibrant as it is. In many ways it is unique nationally - there are other places that may be comparable (Kelham Island in Sheffield for example, or other numerous "cultural quarters" in cities around the UK). These are not "nice to have" localities but completely valuable to a city's diversity of culture, identity and attractiveness to visitors, precisely because they are so rare. And the economic/cultural maintenance of such locations is delicate. My concern is that by over residentialising Spillers Wharf and Malmo Quay, at the scale and mass proposed, then that delicate balance is forvever and what has made Ouseburn such a special location will be forever lost. This does not seem facetious. I understand Igloo have sought to pre-empt concerns about loss of the special identity of Ouseburn by reassuring the businesses and bars of the area that prospective residents of Malmo Quay will be made aware of music/noise/cultural aspects prior to moving in - in the sense that by doing so their development will not then impact. This seems utterly disingenuous. Local businesses like the Tyne Bar are an essential part of what makes Ouseburn special. The Tyne Bar is known for music - limited usually to Sunday afternoons, but undoubtedly part of the vibrancy of the area. Of course, Igloo cannot take any such precautions that would deny a future resident the right to make a noise complaint. Given the closeness of the Tyne Bar to the Malmo development it seems inevitable that such a complaint or series of complaints will be upheld, with the consequence of the Tyne Bar's current business being impacted and part of what makes Ouseburn great being lost because of an inappropriate development. The consultation on this development has been extremely poor. Infact i would contend that the understandable focus on the 18 storey tower block , which is obviously such an eye grabbingly bold development, has meant that many have simply not noted the hybrid nature of the development and teh uncertain and much less clear impact on the equally important location of Spillers Quay. This just feels wrong in every respect. If these important city locations are to be developed residentially, we must have full visibility of what is being proposed. This feel particularly important given that we know how challenging the Malmo sight is to develop on. My concern is that any structural issues subsequently encountered impacting on the viability of Malmo development inevitably lead to further development of Spillers Wharf over which we will have less opportunity to comment and manage the impact of if the hybrid application has already green lighted this. I remain utterly unconvinced that a proposal of this type - with £400,000 flats and £700,000 tower block penthouses as a key feature, etc, does anything to address demand for affordable housing across the city. It is the scale, massing and inappropriate design of the hybrid application that are just one of the many grounds upon which it will be rejected. In particular, we understand that in order to make the development economically viable, it must be at this scale. If agreed, the Council must accept that they are inevitably changing fundamentally and irreversibly changing the nature of this part of the city. Residential development at a lesser scale, more appropriately sized, would of course have less impact on the culture and environment of Ouseburn and this part of the Quayside. If this is deemed to be uneconomic for the developers, then surely it is not an appropriate are for this type of residential development and all of us - planners, developers, residents and local businesses should go back to the drawing board and consider appropriate, exciting, forward thinking developments that harness what is utterly unique about this area. Igloos proposals fundamentally fail this challenge and I implore the council reject this proposal and require something better to be put forward. Just as a last point - i realise that response to design is an aesthetic one and i have no doubt there will be some who consider the idea of an 18 storey tower at this point of the bend in the Tyne to be an exciting one. But why here? Why at this point of the river as it curves, it just seems jarring, so out of place with anything on this location before. It will dominate the skyline and will be divisive for generations. In many ways a much better location would be just further up the river (the location identified for the Eye seems more appropriate) as it would be less impactful visibly. And it is not only the tower but the deeply unattractive low rise rectangular blocks that seem such a disappointing way to densely clutter up what is currently a beautiful, tranquil and historically precious area of the Tyne. Please, please reject this. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| Please stop this!! We have a beautiful area that reflects the great history of a place that holds such a tremendous significance and this is going to just destroy it. High rise buildings are sore to the eyes and will kill the iconic beauty of Ouseburn and Quayside. PLEASE LEAVE OUSEBURN ALONE! | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| Please stop this!! We have a beautiful area that reflects the great history of a place that holds such a tremendous significance and this is going to just destroy it. High rise buildings are sore to the eyes and will kill the iconic beauty of Ouseburn and Quayside. PLEASE LEAVE OUSEBURN ALONE! | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| Please stop this!! We have a beautiful area that reflects the great history of a place that holds such a tremendous significance and this is going to just destroy it. High rise buildings are sore to the eyes and will kill the iconic beauty of Ouseburn and Quayside. PLEASE LEAVE OUSEBURN ALONE! | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| Please stop this!! We have a beautiful area that reflects the great history of a place that holds such a tremendous significance and this is going to just destroy it. High rise buildings are sore to the eyes and will kill the iconic beauty of Ouseburn and Quayside. PLEASE LEAVE OUSEBURN ALONE! | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| Please stop this!! We have a beautiful area that reflects the great history of a place that holds such a tremendous significance and this is going to just destroy it. High rise buildings are sore to the eyes and will kill the iconic beauty of Ouseburn and Quayside. PLEASE LEAVE OUSEBURN ALONE! | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| Please stop this!! We have a beautiful area that reflects the great history of a place that holds such a tremendous significance and this is going to just destroy it. High rise buildings are sore to the eyes and will kill the iconic beauty of Ouseburn and Quayside. PLEASE LEAVE OUSEBURN ALONE! | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| Please stop this!! We have a beautiful area that reflects the great history of a place that holds such a tremendous significance and this is going to just destroy it. High rise buildings are sore to the eyes and will kill the iconic beauty of Ouseburn and Quayside. PLEASE LEAVE OUSEBURN ALONE! | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| Please stop this!! We have a beautiful area that reflects the great history of a place that holds such a tremendous significance and this is going to just destroy it. High rise buildings are sore to the eyes and will kill the iconic beauty of Ouseburn and Quayside. PLEASE LEAVE OUSEBURN ALONE! | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| Please stop this!! We have a beautiful area that reflects the great history of a place that holds such a tremendous significance and this is going to just destroy it. High rise buildings are sore to the eyes and will kill the iconic beauty of Ouseburn and Quayside. PLEASE LEAVE OUSEBURN ALONE! | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| Please stop this!! We have a beautiful area that reflects the great history of a place that holds such a tremendous significance and this is going to just destroy it. High rise buildings are sore to the eyes and will kill the iconic beauty of Ouseburn and Quayside. PLEASE LEAVE OUSEBURN ALONE! | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| Please stop this!! We have a beautiful area that reflects the great history of a place that holds such a tremendous significance and this is going to just destroy it. High rise buildings are sore to the eyes and will kill the iconic beauty of Ouseburn and Quayside. PLEASE LEAVE OUSEBURN ALONE! | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| Please stop this!! We have a beautiful area that reflects the great history of a place that holds such a tremendous significance and this is going to just destroy it. High rise buildings are sore to the eyes and will kill the iconic beauty of Ouseburn and Quayside. PLEASE LEAVE OUSEBURN ALONE! | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| Please stop this!! We have a beautiful area that reflects the great history of a place that holds such a tremendous significance and this is going to just destroy it. High rise buildings are sore to the eyes and will kill the iconic beauty of Ouseburn and Quayside. PLEASE LEAVE OUSEBURN ALONE! | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I strongly object to the planned Malmö Quay development. I have lived in the area for the past three years and have frequented the Ouseburn area for many years before that. It is a real hidden gem of an area, although is becoming more well known every year, and for good reason. It is no surprise the area has become a focus for development and investment, however this development is not only out of character with the rest of the area but also runs the risk of seriously compromising the attributes of the area that make it so attractive, destroying what the developers sought to capitalise on. As many others have mentioned the design of the tower block does not visually match the rest of the area, the size of the building will also overshadow many buildings nearby, including buildings of historical interest. The transport infrastructure in the area is not suitable for a development of such size and will likely lead to a significant increase in congestion and traffic in the area. There is no affordable housing included in the proposal, which seems untenable in the current climate where people are already finding it hard to get their foot on the property ladder. Overall this proposal will be bad for the area in both the short and long term. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to the planning proposal reference: 2021/2404/01 EIA Malmo quay for the following reasons: • The size is not remotely proportionate to anything in the immediate local area and as such drastically changes its character. It’s proposed appearance is unremarkable for an area which has so much heritage, adding nothing of value to the sustained cultural appeal of the Ouseburn. • The size of the tower block will have an negative impact on sunlight in public spaces to the north, north/east of the building and likely existing adjacent private dwellings. Although the daylight and sunlight assessment states each outdoor amenity will receive in excess of the BRE requirements, this will nonetheless affect the appeal of those amenities to the many people that currently come to the area to enjoy them. • It is possible that a development of this size will affect the nature of airflow along the adjacent road and increase risk to passing public during times of high wind. • The plans submitted do not appear to provide adequate parking for residents and as such is likely to create congestion and disruption in the surrounding local areas. • Many people use the area for walking, cycling, running etc. Significantly increasing the population density in the area and flow of traffic has potential to reduce safety. • Adequate provision has not been made to mitigate the potential impact of noise to new residents, caused by existing entertainment venues directly adjacent to the proposed development, for example the Tyne Bar. This is very likely to mean complaints from new residents will be lodged, causing potential aggrievances; restrictions being put in place etc. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to the planning proposal reference: 2021/2404/01 EIA Malmo quay for the following reasons: • The size is not remotely proportionate to anything in the immediate local area and as such drastically changes its character. It’s proposed appearance is unremarkable for an area which has so much heritage, adding nothing of value to the sustained cultural appeal of the Ouseburn. • The size of the tower block will have an negative impact on sunlight in public spaces to the north, north/east of the building and likely existing adjacent private dwellings. Although the daylight and sunlight assessment states each outdoor amenity will receive in excess of the BRE requirements, this will nonetheless affect the appeal of those amenities to the many people that currently come to the area to enjoy them. • It is possible that a development of this size will affect the nature of airflow along the adjacent road and increase risk to passing public during times of high wind. • The plans submitted do not appear to provide adequate parking for residents and as such is likely to create congestion and disruption in the surrounding local areas. • Many people use the area for walking, cycling, running etc. Significantly increasing the population density in the area and flow of traffic has potential to reduce safety. • Adequate provision has not been made to mitigate the potential impact of noise to new residents, caused by existing entertainment venues directly adjacent to the proposed development, for example the Tyne Bar. This is very likely to mean complaints from new residents will be lodged, causing potential aggrievances; restrictions being put in place etc. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to the planning proposal reference: 2021/2404/01 EIA Malmo quay for the following reasons: • The size is not remotely proportionate to anything in the immediate local area and as such drastically changes its character. It’s proposed appearance is unremarkable for an area which has so much heritage, adding nothing of value to the sustained cultural appeal of the Ouseburn. • The size of the tower block will have an negative impact on sunlight in public spaces to the north, north/east of the building and likely existing adjacent private dwellings. Although the daylight and sunlight assessment states each outdoor amenity will receive in excess of the BRE requirements, this will nonetheless affect the appeal of those amenities to the many people that currently come to the area to enjoy them. • It is possible that a development of this size will affect the nature of airflow along the adjacent road and increase risk to passing public during times of high wind. • The plans submitted do not appear to provide adequate parking for residents and as such is likely to create congestion and disruption in the surrounding local areas. • Many people use the area for walking, cycling, running etc. Significantly increasing the population density in the area and flow of traffic has potential to reduce safety. • Adequate provision has not been made to mitigate the potential impact of noise to new residents, caused by existing entertainment venues directly adjacent to the proposed development, for example the Tyne Bar. This is very likely to mean complaints from new residents will be lodged, causing potential aggrievances; restrictions being put in place etc. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I would like to object to the proposal on the grounds that it is not an appropriate addition in the ouseburn valley. An area filled with local history and heritage. The design and size of the development will be an eyesore and not blend in with the buildings in existence. The addition of 70+ apartments will also negatively impact the local traffic and parking. Not only do they propose to remove an existing car park there are less spaces than apartments in the new car park. The area draws large numbers of tourists and visitors particularly during weekends. If they cannot park then local businesses will lose out. I strongly object to the development proposal. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I would like to object to the proposal on the grounds that it is not an appropriate addition in the ouseburn valley. An area filled with local history and heritage. The design and size of the development will be an eyesore and not blend in with the buildings in existence. The addition of 70+ apartments will also negatively impact the local traffic and parking. Not only do they propose to remove an existing car park there are less spaces than apartments in the new car park. The area draws large numbers of tourists and visitors particularly during weekends. If they cannot park then local businesses will lose out. I strongly object to the development proposal. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| Objection: Scale of development – out of keeping with quality redevelopment of Lower Ouseburn Valley Overshadowing of existing buildings by tower block Provision of flats for which there is low demand, permission already granted/construction under way for flats on St Lawrence road and at the other end of the Lower Ouseburn Many flats in area already available Lack of parking – already becoming an issue with shrinking of car park. Ouseburn valley already congested, parking spreading out to nearby residential areas – will become worse when Whey Aye development starts Residents of block will need cars, failure to provide parking does not prevent car ownership – see existing Ouseburn Wharf and Mariners Wharf which have parking but still have congested roadways with residents’ parking No provision for charging of electric vehicles for residents – short sighted given sale of petrol & diesel cars projected to end in 2030 Lack of social housing provision Setting – privatisation of iconic views of Tyne Bridges – blocking sightlines from St Lawrence Road and Byker hill Proximity to Tyne Bar likely to cause residents noise nuisance, impact on business of complaints Lower Ouseburn development is based around small scale units and live work spaces – attracts tourism and local leisure visitors – scale, especially of block, ruins character of area and threatens footfall to local small businesses Tower block has single stairway and fire plan is ‘stay put’ – surely a discredited design following Grenfell Planned tourist attraction of Whey Aye relies on views up the Tyne – who is going to pay to ride a wheel with view blocked by ugly block? Given the intended leisure development of Spillers Quay – inappropriate site for residential housing – high level of disturbance to residents will make it an unattractive place to live London has protected view regulations – Newcastle deserves similar and the view from the Free Trade is a major tourist attraction | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| This building is not in keeping with the conservation area. It will put a strain on current transport services (that are severely lacking as is) and will destroy one of the most beautiful, renowned and photographed views in not just Newcastle, but I'd say the North East. Given the amount of objections and lack of support above, to build this would be laughing in the faces of the local people who elect you in and pay their Council Tax. Liverpool has been stripped of its World Heritage status after a UN committee found developments threatened the value of the city's waterfront. If we ever want to protect ours, we need to be mindful of this. The tearing down of Spillers and the Odeon, plus the criminal neglect of the Tyne Bridge has already shown we need to protect our history. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to application reference 2021/2404/01/EIA, Malmo Quay. This is because the size and scale of the building is not in keeping with the rest of the Quayside and utterly contradict the Tyne Gorge study and Tall building policy for the area. There is also limited car space in the area and to add in this many flats would cause traffic issues. In addition to this, the transport links are already poor and a huge influx of residents would add additional strain. Finally, the community is united in it's dislike of these proposals and we hope that the Council truly understands what a building like this would do to the local community | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| The view is too perfect to ruin with a tower block. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| The view is too perfect to ruin with a tower block. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| To Whom it May Concern, I am a nearby resident to this area which is a focal point for culture in Newcastle. Already the popular and historic pubs like the Tyne Bar have issues with noise complaints from new developments despite the fact the close proximity to a popular music venue was a given before anyone moved in. I fear this new development amongst other things will cause further such issues and reducing a cultural hub to simply a housing estate with no affordable housing for local residents. In addition the 18 storey height of the construction stands to completely destroy the views and harmony of the rest of ouseburn valley including the free trade inn, one of whoms main selling points is its tremendous view of the tyne. This establishment draws large groups especially in the summer, and when it does the new residents are likely to complain and curtail the existing freedoms enjoyed by many a visitor. Please deny the planning permission for such an ill-fitting cash grab which stands to cause great disharmony in an area that has otherwise been updated with historical significance and enjoyment by all in mind. Kind regards, Andrew Roberts 68 Ouseburn Wharf, St Lawrence Road, Ouseburn, NE6 1BZ | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I am submitting this objection on behalf of the Newcastle Young Green Party. We oppose the above plan to build an 18 storey tower block and 8 storey blocks of flats on Malmo Quay for the following reasons: 1. Height and architectural style: The proposed 18 storey block would sit in striking opposition with the architecture of nearby Quayside blocks of flats, which are a maximum of 5 storeys, as would the proposed 8 storey blocks in the area currently occupied by The Cycle Hub. Moreover, the proposed buildings’ architectural style does not follow the maritime themes present in the Quayside area nor the ex-industrial themes of the Ouseburn. The height and out of place style would produce a stark and unbalanced visual contrast in Newcastle’s famous and well-loved river Tyne skyline. 2. Cultural significance: The Ouseburn and Quayside areas are popular locations for walks and outings, the Ouseburn having a unique history and acting as the city’s alternative cultural centre. Its popularity is exemplified and to an extent driven by the Tyne Bar and Free Trade Inn pubs which are frequented by locals and visitors. The tower would cast a shadow over the Tyne Bar and obstruct the much-loved view of the Free Trade Inn. These public places are shared by all and their character and charm would be marred by the construction of this private tower block and large blocks of flats. 3. Car parking, safety and road works: The plans propose “car and cycle parking and associated public realm and open space works, stopping up of areas of public highway and highways improvement works all on Malmo Quay”. We would like to point out that with the popularity of the area for pedestrians and bicycles, it would be unacceptable to disrupt any through routes used by foot and bike traffic. Furthermore, due to the pollution and congestion caused by cars, it would be inappropriate to optimise highway improvements for car parking and car travel. Instead, we propose that any development should focus on incentivising people out of cars and should favour accessible and active travel instead, through implementing the necessary infrastructure and public transport links. The Hadrian’s Cycleway section that passes through Malmo Quay, for instance, should be maintained and prioritised. Thank you for your consideration. Signed, Anna Cuninghame Newcastle Young Greens Activist | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I do not believe this development is at all suitable for the local area, which is already groaning under the pressure of inappropriate and aggressive regeneration. I believe that the Malmo Quay development will have a detrimental impact on the existing topography of the Ouseburn and Quayside. The area has a beautiful and diverse range of buildings that I think the proposed development completely ignores. Both in scale and style, Malmo Quay in no way enhances the built environment, and if anything, ignores this heritage completely and drowns out the existing rich architecture of many listed buildings. I worry especially for the local businesses who have done so much hard work to make Ouseburn what it is today. By constructing a tower of such a size, you are not only ruining a relatively unspoilt and beautiful view of our city's quayside - the same view painted by J.M.W Turner in 1823 - you are putting these businesses in serious and immediate risk of loss of earnings due to overshadowing, blockage of sunlight, as well as a build up of noisy traffic in what has previously been a tranquil, relaxed part of Newcastle. I worry especially for The Tyne Bar and The Free Trade Inn who have already had to make so many compromises over the past two years and have managed to keep their staff in jobs and supported. I'm speaking as a former Tyne Bar employee; the anxieties around this development for not only business owners, but their staff, too, is very real. We do not believe that Malmo Quay will bring any positive opportunities to the communities we live and work in already; if anything I think it will be of detriment to them. Thank you for your time, Archie Smith | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| As a local resident in the nearby Citipeak Apartments it’s incredibly disappointing to see that once again plans for a development on these areas in question have been lodged. It’s clear that developers are determined to build on this area despite backlash from local residents for a number of years. The plans are in no way sympathetic or consistent to the current architecture in the remaining parts of Ouseburn, and would in no way fit the description of a ‘landmark’ as mentioned by the developers themselves. The beauty of Ouseburn is that it is understated and beautiful, it does not need such a development of this size of design. With Quayside and subsequently bars shops cafes and bridges and a weekly market being nearby, the traffic situation is already very difficult in the area and streets such as St Lawrence Road are very difficult to get parked on, yet there is a real lack of consideration given to this in the plans. Furthermore with roads such as Walker Road being central to transport in and around the city, traffic and air pollution is an obvious issue which would only be magnified and worsened by the development. As seen recently with the 4 way control traffic lights, approximately hundreds of cars are having to pile up, a simulation of what could actually happen if these plans were allowed. Given the council and government are keen to reduce air pollution in the area it seems inconsistent that such plans would be approved as traffic would not only be worsened in the Walker and Quayside area but also in the wider city centre area. While other developments have gone ahead in recent years and have arguably helped the area, a number of the commercial units remain empty. Despite this, the developers of this proposal have insisted on including more commercial units - clear evidence they are not aware of nor sympathetic to the current area and do not have the correct interests. As mentioned earlier, it is disappointing that this is a continuing issue. As somebody who moved to this area to study at university, I’ve fallen in love with this city and remained here as a graduate, and the Ouseburn and Quayside are a contributing factor to this. This is a unique area that is the envy of other cities, having a high rise building in this part of the city sets a dangerous precedent that could lead to our cherished Ouseburn area and Quayside being unrecognisable in years to come. This would be devastating to all of the passionate residents and volunteers who help make the area the amazing place to live that it is. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| My concerns are regarding the Malmo Quay development - the proposed buildings, particularly the tower block. The size and design of the building are wildly inappropriate for the industrial heritage of the surrounding area and its listed buildings. These listed buildings do not exist in isolation - their historical value is intrinsically connected to the surrounding landscape of the ouseburn valley and quays. This issue is further worsened by the large shadow the building will cast. Furthermore the parking spaces will be inadequate, and even if more parking became available in the future, the local roads will struggle to support the traffic. Metro stations are too far away to offer adequate access. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I am writing to object to the planning application for Malmo Quay Ref: 2021/2404/01/EIA. I have grown up and worked in the Ouseburn valley for most of my life. I have watched the landscape of the area change and grow and become a place which is filled with vibrancy and exciting new ventures. However, this new development is not sympathetic to the area, and does not align itself in the way that new developments such as the Lower Steenbergs development have. It is important that the history of the area is protected and that the development reflects the industrial past of the east end of the city. The tower block is of particular concern to me, this tower is completely out of character with the landscape, it will dominate the skyline and will cause problems of overshadowing and blocking of sunlight across the lower Ouseburn, causing an impact to the Tyne Bar and the Free Trade inn. From working at Toffee Factory for 6 years, I know the problems of parking which already exist in the Ouseburn valley. The proposed development will only exacerbate these issues, already there is often cars parked in inappropriate places and block the paving which causes dangers for pedestrians, children and disabled people. Where the development is set to be build is a very narrow road, it will cause obstructions to people traveling into the Ouseburn which will affect the livelihoods of businesses and cause further dangers. It will also cause an increased amount of traffic using Horatio Street, which will is a narrow cobbled street and not built for increased traffic usage. There is also limited access to public transportation, so using this as a substitute will not be adequate. The increased pollution from the site is a concern, with the Ouseburn river and surrounding areas having it’s own eco-system and bio-diversity which is important to the area and helps to create green spaces in an inner-city area. Building so many more residential properties in an already very built up area will create more traffic and pollution and will affect the these eco-systems. The large scale of the development is a concern for anyone who is part of the Ouseburn community and who value this area as a huge asset for the city. I hope you that this development will be reconsidered and re-designed to be more sympathetic and in-keeping with the things that make people love the Ouseburn. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I have only recently moved in the area together with my partner, and one of the reasons why was because we have a gorgeous view out of our windows. This project quite literally makes us want to leave as it will spoil the view not only for us, but for everyone around. It is absolutely outrageous the fact that we have to fight against this, because it should be 'NO NO!' as soon as it was presented to the council. I get it, the city has to develop, but an 18 storey building? I am mind blown. Instead of using the space for another big company to benefit from, why can't we invest tax payers money to provide entertainment for the surrounding neighbourhood. Moreover, and not less important, this does not fit with the overall aesthetic of Ouseburn, it would only wreck and spoil what is a great community. Please do not go ahead with this. If you do, then lets bring it down a bit to say 5 stories shall we? Kind regards. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I would like to object to proposed works 2021/2404/01/EIA due to the following reasons The size, colours and architectural design of this development are out of sync with the rest of the Ouseburn and will look totally out of place in the area. The tower will block out a lot of light and cast large shadows which will negatively impact on other residents/businesses. Privicy of existing residents could be compromised due to the height of the proposed buildings Due to the size of the proposed development there will be a lot more vehicles in the area and there does not seem to be anywhere near enough parking to accommodate the potential numbers of new vehicles. More vehicles will add even more strain on the already busy roads and side streets which struggle to cope with existing levels of traffic and could become hot-spot for car crime. A rise in noise and chemical pollution due to extra vehicles on the roads is also an issue. It will be a travesty if this goes ahead, I have been involved with the area for a long time and it has a unique culture and community attached to it which will be threatened by this development. Please consider all objections as we love place and do not want to see it ruined forever | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| Out of place in amongst the quayside and Ouseburn | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| The building is out of keeping with the ambiance and aesthetics of the surrounding area. It does not appear to be a solution to the affordable housing problem and the area in general should not be a space for a residential project but instead somewhere for all to enjoy. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I am writing to strongly object the Malmo Quays planning proposal. The project does not address the need for affordable housing. It is also disproportionately tall compared to all other buildings in the area and the design is not in keeping with the local area. Despite the size and the number of flats, the planned parking proposed will not be adequate for the number of flats and has clearly not been considered fully. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to this development due to the quality of design. The building will not fit in with it's surroundings and will ruin the feel provided by the older repurposed buildings. I also have an issue with the car parking allocated to the development. It is already a struggle to park in this area and this building will lead to further on street parking and dangerous disruption of the national cycle route. Ouseburn has a unique, vibrant and fun atmosphere. The addition of developments such as these will take this atmosphere away. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to this application as the building is far too large and out of place for the site in its architecture. The highway is narrow here and already poorly managed meaning cars are parked on the paths and pedestrian access is poor along what should be an easily accessed route. It means many people walk in the road between the parked cars and I can only see this development increasing traffic and pollution in this area. The position ruins view along the river at the entrance to the quayside and from the Free Trade In . | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| This development is very much contrary to the character and heritage of the Ouseburn area. It will dominate the skyline, and unlike other recent developments bears no architectural sympathy to the existing buildings and heritage assets in the area. I have a number of other, specific concerns. The provision of parking is inadequate, even when further spaces on Spiller's Quay have been considered as part of a seperate application. The relatively poor public transport links in the area mean that the proportion of residents requiring a car is much higher than has been planned for, and therefore the development would have a significant, detrimental impact to congestion on the surrounding roads and the national cycleway. This is directly contradictory to the area's local plan. Furthermore the development will have significant negative impacts on adjacent residents. For many in the Lime Square and High Quays developments, this development will block light in the mornings. Like many others I am strongly opposed to this development. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I would like to object to the application on the following grounds: - The size and design of the development, in particular the tower block, is not in keeping with the rest of the Quayside and Ouseburn areas. - The inclusion of the large tower appears to have been included only to make the project profitable without any consideration of the impact on the area. - The additional residential buildings are likely to add to the existing parking and traffic issues on a busy walking and cycling route, especially if the already busy car park at Spillers Quay is removed. There is a replacement car park proposed in the application, but this is no bigger than the existing one and won't be built straight away, if at all. - The above traffic issue would also likely increase noise and pollution in the area. - Access to the area is already extremely limited via Horatio Street or St Lawrence Road. - The tower will be significantly higher than the other buildings in the area and will create overshadowing issues, especially to the southern end of Ouseburn valley which the tower would be directly south of. - Removal of green space on Malmo Quay. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I am writing to object the build of Malmo Quays. The Ouseburn area of Newcastle is a sacred spot of serenity and social surroundings. It is well known for its peaceful walks, farm, river and independent shops. I live in the area and every Sunday it is busy with families and people of all ages enjoying a wander along the river, towards the quayside and on to the market. The space by the Tyne that is proposed to be built on is in the middle of this leisurely Sunday route and would without doubt take away from the views, serenity and popularity of this area of Newcastle. In my opinion, and in many others, the addition of a tower block would ruin this area of Newcastle. Ruin the independent, community feel of the Ouseburn and quayside. It would no longer be such a fantastic walk through the cultural quarter of Newcastle. The space could be used to ADD to the cultural quarter, ADD to the popular Sunday stroll route, ENHANCE the community feel of the Ouseburn area and INSPIRE those who love it so much. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| This application is disappointingly shoddy and full of half truths and omissions It is way below the standard we expect from Igloo It is a kick in the face after all the efforts of so many people to get Ouseburn where it is today and does a disservice to THE prime site in the valley. It should be refuse or at least withdrawn although this might lead to loss of grant and have legal implications for the Framework agreement Enough has been said of Malmo but the Spillers site has been largely ignored but is a lot worse - the cycle hub building should be retained as it represents an important 1990s period of development, and would sit well next to new buildings and allow the Hub itself to continue. The propose replacement 5 storey building would create a dark chasm against the retaining wall up to the Free Trade (worse than at the back of Mariners Wharf) The loss of the 18 units could be increasing the 8 storey building or developing the site between the Tyne and Free Trade or simply reducing the size of the development. There are also questions about retaining the boat yard in such a prime location Fixing the siting and size of buildings through this outline process doesn't seem the right way to proceed for such an important site The whole proposal is lacking in ambition - this is an opportunity to make radical transport improvements here - eg closing Quayside road completely at the lower level bridge And what about animating the river ? | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| This application is disappointingly shoddy and full of half truths and omissions It is way below the standard we expect from Igloo It is a kick in the face after all the efforts of so many people to get Ouseburn where it is today and does a disservice to THE prime site in the valley. It should be refuse or at least withdrawn although this might lead to loss of grant and have legal implications for the Framework agreement Enough has been said of Malmo but the Spillers site has been largely ignored but is a lot worse - the cycle hub building should be retained as it represents an important 1990s period of development, and would sit well next to new buildings and allow the Hub itself to continue. The propose replacement 5 storey building would create a dark chasm against the retaining wall up to the Free Trade (worse than at the back of Mariners Wharf) The loss of the 18 units could be increasing the 8 storey building or developing the site between the Tyne and Free Trade or simply reducing the size of the development. There are also questions about retaining the boat yard in such a prime location Fixing the siting and size of buildings through this outline process doesn't seem the right way to proceed for such an important site The whole proposal is lacking in ambition - this is an opportunity to make radical transport improvements here - eg closing Quayside road completely at the lower level bridge And what about animating the river ? | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| This application is disappointingly shoddy and full of half truths and omissions It is way below the standard we expect from Igloo It is a kick in the face after all the efforts of so many people to get Ouseburn where it is today and does a disservice to THE prime site in the valley. It should be refuse or at least withdrawn although this might lead to loss of grant and have legal implications for the Framework agreement Enough has been said of Malmo but the Spillers site has been largely ignored but is a lot worse - the cycle hub building should be retained as it represents an important 1990s period of development, and would sit well next to new buildings and allow the Hub itself to continue. The propose replacement 5 storey building would create a dark chasm against the retaining wall up to the Free Trade (worse than at the back of Mariners Wharf) The loss of the 18 units could be increasing the 8 storey building or developing the site between the Tyne and Free Trade or simply reducing the size of the development. There are also questions about retaining the boat yard in such a prime location Fixing the siting and size of buildings through this outline process doesn't seem the right way to proceed for such an important site The whole proposal is lacking in ambition - this is an opportunity to make radical transport improvements here - eg closing Quayside road completely at the lower level bridge And what about animating the river ? | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| Darryl Murphy, 44 Cartington Terrace, NE65SE The building would be in complete disregard of the local topography and council policy towards Ouseburn Valley. It is a beautiful area for locals and visitors to enjoy sunshine and daylight from the river views, which would be blocked The increase in population is such a concentrated area as a tower could increase drastically air quality or habitats and environment, which are important to Ouseburn Valley and its wildlife, such as those often found in the river itself or its surroundings Mainly it is not in keeping at all with the local area, protruding hugely from any existing buildings meaning it is not at all appropriate for the area | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| Off Quay Building Foundry Lane Ouseburn Newcastle NE6 1LH Planning City of Newcastle upon Tyne Civic Centre Newcastle 16th February 2022 Planning Application : 2021/2404/01/EIA Malmo Quay & Spillers Quay Hello I wish to object to the proposals for housing on Malmo Quay and Spillers Quay in the form in which they are presented. There are several reasons:- 1. Malmo Quay is an inappropriate site for a tall residential building. It obstructs and significant views of the vista along the River Tyne and the Tyne gorge. Reducing the profile of the block may reduce the obstruction of the view but its existence with any profile obstructs the wider vista. This is a valued iconic view of the City. 2. No cultural contribution It does not contribute to the cultural significance of the gorge, whereas, the other major visual elements to the valley walls are Sage, the Bridges, Law Courts, Baltic, Cathedral spires, Castle, etc. I would be more sympathetic if the building was a significant contributor to the cultural landscape. Housing fails to achieve this. 3. Poor standard of design. I might have been more tolerant of such a height and mass if it had been a design of outstanding global significance. E.g. Lumo. in Arles, Rhone Valley, France. Only with that standard of significance, and cultural facilities, would it be justified to add another feature to the vista of the Tyne gorge. 4. Lack of Social housing. Newcastle, as with most of the UK, desperately needs social housing. These proposals do not deliver that. My suspicion is that it will become similar to other residential developments along the river near the Ouseburn, largely owned by absentee landlords for commercial purposes and without community involvement. 5. Loss of Cycle Hub I vigorously object to the proposal to demolish the Cycle Hub. That building DOES offer a significant historical and cultural contribution to the riverside, and is an excellent and unique example of the style of its era, with its multiple curved roof lines. The proposal to offer an alternative, both fails to preserve the character of the building, and fragments the symbiotic relations between the businesses located in the building, a fragmentation which destroys the very strength of that cluster of businesses. 6. Hybrid Application The strategy of the hybrid application appears to frustrate the proper opportunities for scrutiny and engagement with the issues raised, over both sites. That unusual strategy is completely unnecessary. 7. Flood risk. With not just rising sea levels, and even more rapidly increases in tidal extremes, it was no surprise that the development site was recently included in DEFRA’s charts of areas at risk of flooding. I understand from an officer I contacted, that an older plan of flood risks was used for reference. Additionally, the sewage pumping stations under both Malmo Quay and Spillers Quay will be under increasing strain during times of high rainfall and high tides. It seems perverse to provide residences above a sewage tank whose mitigation against flood risks is to discharge untreated sewage into the Ouseburn. 8. Precedent The 32-storey ‘Wimpey tower’ application on this site exactly twenty years ago was refused by Members when it came to Committee, despite Officer’s recommendations to approve. I urge Members to take a similar view to this abomination. Thank You Dave Cross | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I am writing to oppose the Malmo Quay development from PFP Igloo. This is in consideration of the impact of the development on the local amenity, the overshadowing the development will cause and the traffic generation of the development. The Ouseburn area consists of a series of independent businesses set in historic buildings. This is what makes Ouseburn unique in Newcastle and gives it a particular appeal. The Malmo Quay development, with its grand scale, would damage this unique selling point. It is a modern, large building and as such, runs counter to the character of the surrounding area. The development risks jeopardising the carefully nurtured economy of Ouseburn; it will likely have long lasting negative consequences for growth and investment in the East End quayside. The size of the building will lead to overshadowing. This will reduce the visual splendour of the East End quayside and Ouseburn, again reducing its USP, alongside its identity. The parking plans outlined for Malmo Quay are woefully inadequate. 18 parking spaces for 62 apartments will inevitably lead to on-street parking. This will, in turn, negatively impact the air quality, pedestrian access, disability access and cycling routes. This area is currently enjoyed by many because people can cycle, walk and travel with ease, away from the air pollution of the city centre. The East End quayside and the greater Ouseburn area is a unique hotspot for creative and independent businesses. It has a draw that grows year on year and the proposed development would severely damage it. Embrace what we currently have, rather than proceeding with it. The large size of the | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I am writing to oppose the Malmo Quay development from PFP Igloo. This is in consideration of the impact of the development on the local amenity, the overshadowing the development will cause and the traffic generation of the development. The Ouseburn area consists of a series of independent businesses set in historic buildings. This is what makes Ouseburn unique in Newcastle and gives it a particular appeal. The Malmo Quay development, with its grand scale, would damage this unique selling point. It is a modern, large building and as such, runs counter to the character of the surrounding area. The development risks jeopardising the carefully nurtured economy of Ouseburn; it will likely have long lasting negative consequences for growth and investment in the East End quayside. The size of the building will lead to overshadowing. This will reduce the visual splendour of the East End quayside and Ouseburn, again reducing its USP, alongside its identity. The parking plans outlined for Malmo Quay are woefully inadequate. 18 parking spaces for 62 apartments will inevitably lead to on-street parking. This will, in turn, negatively impact the air quality, pedestrian access, disability access and cycling routes. This area is currently enjoyed by many because people can cycle, walk and travel with ease, away from the air pollution of the city centre. The East End quayside and the greater Ouseburn area is a unique hotspot for creative and independent businesses. It has a draw that grows year on year and the proposed development would severely damage it. Embrace what we currently have, rather than proceeding with it. The large size of the | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I am writing to oppose the Malmo Quay development from PFP Igloo. This is in consideration of the impact of the development on the local amenity, the overshadowing the development will cause and the traffic generation of the development. The Ouseburn area consists of a series of independent businesses set in historic buildings. This is what makes Ouseburn unique in Newcastle and gives it a particular appeal. The Malmo Quay development, with its grand scale, would damage this unique selling point. It is a modern, large building and as such, runs counter to the character of the surrounding area. The development risks jeopardising the carefully nurtured economy of Ouseburn; it will likely have long lasting negative consequences for growth and investment in the East End quayside. The size of the building will lead to overshadowing. This will reduce the visual splendour of the East End quayside and Ouseburn, again reducing its USP, alongside its identity. The parking plans outlined for Malmo Quay are woefully inadequate. 18 parking spaces for 62 apartments will inevitably lead to on-street parking. This will, in turn, negatively impact the air quality, pedestrian access, disability access and cycling routes. This area is currently enjoyed by many because people can cycle, walk and travel with ease, away from the air pollution of the city centre. The East End quayside and the greater Ouseburn area is a unique hotspot for creative and independent businesses. It has a draw that grows year on year and the proposed development would severely damage it. Embrace what we currently have, rather than proceeding with it. The large size of the | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| Strongly object to this tower block being built in such close proximity to thriving ouseburn area, especially to the tyne bar as it provides a real threat to that venues ability to put on outdoor music events, which is already a rarity in this city. Further more the design is an eyesore dining the view of the bridges from this area of the river. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to this planning application due to the following reasons: - I don't see logically how a building of this magnitude is going to work in regards to parking. There are not enough parking spaces in the plan for the amount of apartments proposed, and due to the location not being near any public transport it is inevitable that residents would be using their cars often. There is already limited parking on the quayside, and this would be stretched further if the apartment block was built, as well as the current car park by The Hub being removed. - The design of the building doesn't fit at all with the existing aesthetic of the quayside, which includes several historic buildings. It would be an eye sore to say the least. - The building would impact greatly on the natural light in the area, as well as the current properties in the vicinity. - It would likely cause issues between the residents of the building and the long standing pubs and music venues nearby, due to noise complaints from the residents. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| Regarding development 2021/2404/01/EIA at Malmo Quay. As a local resident I hope to be heard when taking the time to write about the clear issues there are with this development. Foremost I would like to point out that not a single person I have spoke to about this has seen this tower block as attractive/ in keeping with the local area/ good for the local businesses or even helpful for the people residing in the area due to the added traffic and therefore noise and pollution. For the council to allow this development would be to completely disregard the opinion of the residents and visitors of the beautiful and historic Ouseburn area. The area for development should certainly be used for more housing in the area or to further add to the vibrant community there, however the proposed tower block is completely out of keeping with the buildings around the Malmo Quay area. The tower includes so many extra stories in comparison to the buildings around it, causing it to look like it has been designed for a whole other area. It is insensitive and ill designed for the environment it is for. This kind of height was clearly cause serious overshadowing of the areas around, which bring a lot of business especially during the summer months. These areas are wide and open allowing for the public to enjoy the sun whilst making use of the local businesses. The Ouseburn is very pedestrian friendly, and a tower block with this many residents would cause a huge amount of traffic in the area, adding to noise and pollution, and ultimately changing the whole feel of the mouth of Ouseburn. The development to take up this space should add to the area and benefit those who use it, rather than create this much upset for the residents there. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| Objection to planning application 2021/2404/01/EIA Malmo Quay I object to the above proposed development based around two fundamental factors - aesthetic and practicality. There is no logical argument that can reasonably be put forward that the block of flats fits into the existing landscape, the entire feel of it from its design to colour doesn't appear to match any of the existing buildings. The already dire parking situation would be exacerbated massively as the plans appear to show a huge discrepancy between amount of flats versus parking spaces. Due to the height of the proposed block of flats, many surrounding businesses and residences would see a reduction in natural light directly attributed to the block. Noise disputes would inevitably ensue between residents of the block and existing nearby establishments, as has happened previously. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I wish to object to this development for 2 reasons. Firstly I believe this development will have a detrimental effect on the surrounding area. This development and it tower block is out of keeping with the surrounding area and the surrounding buildings. The Ouseburn is at the creative heart of Newcastle and this land could be put to much better use to help support, develop and encourage this growth industry. Newcastle is in competition with so many other cities for jobs and tourism and diversification into the creative sector is so important for us. Secondly Newcastle is incredibly lucky to have the internationally famous Free Trade Inn Public House which sits right beside this development. Tourists come from all parts of the UK and from further afield, to visit this institution. Its old world charm and spectacular beer gardens will be completely blighted by this development. This particular Public House has supported so many Tyneside based start up breweries as they have developed and grown. My objection is that we should protect the best of what we have, what makes us unique and what brings benefit to us all. So come on Newcastle City Council, stand up for your city, protect what makes us special rather than degrading or dismissing it. How many times have we, as a city, looked back and regretted we hadn't done this in the past. I have no connection with the Free Trade Inn other than as a customer. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I am objecting to this development on the following grounds: - The height and structural elements of a skyscraper - the size is completely out of character for the area, and it will overshadow the Quayside, Ouseburn, and East End blocking views and causing light concerns. The structure will be by far the largest on the Quayside and will be out of place in its current location. - Design quality - A beige 18-story structure in such a prominent location has very little appeal. The ancient and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn do not blend in with such a huge design. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I am writing to strongly object to this proposed development on Malmo Quay. The first point to be made is that as a proposed structure, it is not appropriate for the Ouseburn area. This is an area that is poorly supplied by public transport with already restricted parking and existing traffic problems. The parking arrangement plans in this proposal and their inadequacy would cause great issues for the wider area, putting pressure on the parking situation in the local area. This leads nicely on to the point that this is an area poorly provided by public transport, and such a development would not be practical to access, with sizeable walks with steep gradients to any local services. These are reasonable and important points, but beyond this, the actual design of the proposed development is garish. It is completely in contrast to all the other buildings in the local area and would stand out like a sore thumb. It is inappropriate for that reason. The colour scheme, exterior design and shape of the building are unpleasant to look at and this does not fit with the Ouseburn area. It does not respect nor enhance (rather it detracts from) the historical character of the Ouseburn and Quayside neighbourhood. Ned Smith | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| Newcastle 17th February 2022 To Newcastle City Council Planning Department, REF: 2021/2404/01/EIA RE: Malmo Quay & Spillers Quay planning application, letter of objection Dear Planning Committee members, We are writing as concerned citizens of the city and as academics in the built environment at Newcastle University, School of Architecture, Planning & Landscape, in relation to the proposed development on Malmo Quay and Spiller’s Quay, in particular the proposed 18 story tower block on the Malmo Quay site. We write in a personal capacity and our views do not necessarily express those of the school or wider university. We want to appeal to our city’s pledge to be both a climate leader and having declared a climate emergency – two actions that make us proud and honoured to live in Newcastle. Our world is facing unprecedented environmental and ecological collapse. How we use resources – including those that we extract from the ground and refine into building products – sits behind the crisis we are now beginning to experience. Our government has pledged to reduce carbon emissions by two-thirds by 2035 as reiterated in Industrial Decarbonisation Strategy Report, 2021, asserting the UK's commitment to the Paris Agreement and Glasgow COP26. There is a tremendous national responsibility for the building industry to act accordingly as the built environment accounts for nearly forty percent of carbon emissions globally – a figure that includes the construction as well as running emissions of our buildings. To continue to build using substantial quantities of steel, concrete, glass, plastics – highly carbon intensive building materials – will make no positive change to our journey to net zero, and will keep on contributing to the heating of our atmosphere and seas, and to the degradation of our soils. Our objection asks you as a council committee to consider whether we can justifiably approve a structure that in its construction will consume large quantities of raw materials, whose extraction, refinement and use releases significant quantities of carbon into our atmosphere. We ask you to consider what actions the planning committee can take now to lock-in and prevent the release of further atmospheric carbon and the consumption of energy and resources – and ask you to consider your obligations to both present inhabitants of our city and future generations to limit development where it significantly impacts our environment. We note that in Section 3 of the submitted Sustainability and Utilities Report, under the ‘Reduce whole-life CO2equivalent emissions’ that the developers are awaiting a life-cycle carbon assessment by Focus Assessments. These assessments look at the carbon emissions from the materials, construction and use of a building over its expected lifespan. This includes the carbon embodied in the construction materials, the construction process, the energy consumed by the building, and the energy released in its demolition. Steel and concrete construction processes and the nature of the materials are highly carbon intensive – in both their production and at the end of their lifespan. Low rise buildings can be built that have much lower carbon emissions, however conventionally constructed tower blocks are inherently carbon intensive, in their materials, construction and use. We urge the planning committee to seriously consider the impact of the tower block on the target of net zero by 2030 – an ambitious target welcomed as part of the council’s action on the climate crisis. This target date – 8 years from now – is necessary to at least attempt to mitigate increases in atmospheric carbon, and to keep below 1.5-2 degrees of warming. Breaching these temperature increases will result in life-systems altering environmental change and collapse, and it is imperative that we seriously consider all new developments under these criteria. We note the developer’s previous engagement in ethical and environmentally led decision-making processes in their recent, local developments and would urge Igloo to carry out and release a full life-cycle carbon assessment of the tower block prior to planning being granted, and for the planning committee to fully scrutinize the development for its likely impact on the city council’s target of net zero by 2030. If this ambitious target is to be met, and we are to attempt to limit environmental degradation and collapse for ourselves and future generations, it is down to you as members of the planning committee to explore and examine applications for significant and highly energy intensive developments rigorously and with this target in mind. We urge you to reject this application, to ask the developer to explore low-energy intensive development options, and to carry out and submit a whole-life cycle carbon assessment on any future application. Yours faithfully, Dr. Edward Wainwright, Lecturer in Architecture, Climate Literacy Co-Lead, School of Architecture, Planning & Landscape, Newcastle University Dr. Marin Sawa, Hub for Biotechnology in the Built Environment, School of Architecture, Planning & Landscape, Newcastle University Prof. Jeremy W Crampton, Professor of Urban Data Analysis, School of Architecture, Planning & Landscape, Newcastle University Nathan Hudson, Workshop Technician, Sustainability Volunteer - School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, Newcastle University Dr Andrew M Law - Senior Lecturer in Town Planning Oliver Perry - Technical Officer for the Hub for Biotechnology in the Built Environment, School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, Newcastle University Dr. William Thomson - Research Associate, School of Architecture, Planning & Landscape, Newcastle University Harry Thompson, Postgraduate Researcher, School of Architecutre, Planning & Landscape, Newcastle University Dr Clare Vaughan, Researcher, School of Architecture, Planning & Landscape, Newcastle University Julie Rankin, Finance & Operations Administrator, School of Architecture, Planning & Landscape, Newcastle University Dr Julia Heslop, Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Architecture, School of Architecture, Planning & Landscape, Newcastle University Dr Niki Black, Research Associate, School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, Newcastle University Dr Claire Harper, architect and lecturer, School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, Newcastle University Prof. Steve Graham, Professor of Cities & Society, School of Architecture, Planning & Landscape, Newcastle University | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| Newcastle 17th February 2022 To Newcastle City Council Planning Department, REF: 2021/2404/01/EIA RE: Malmo Quay & Spillers Quay planning application, letter of objection Dear Planning Committee members, We are writing as concerned citizens of the city and as academics in the built environment at Newcastle University, School of Architecture, Planning & Landscape, in relation to the proposed development on Malmo Quay and Spiller’s Quay, in particular the proposed 18 story tower block on the Malmo Quay site. We write in a personal capacity and our views do not necessarily express those of the school or wider university. We want to appeal to our city’s pledge to be both a climate leader and having declared a climate emergency – two actions that make us proud and honoured to live in Newcastle. Our world is facing unprecedented environmental and ecological collapse. How we use resources – including those that we extract from the ground and refine into building products – sits behind the crisis we are now beginning to experience. Our government has pledged to reduce carbon emissions by two-thirds by 2035 as reiterated in Industrial Decarbonisation Strategy Report, 2021, asserting the UK's commitment to the Paris Agreement and Glasgow COP26. There is a tremendous national responsibility for the building industry to act accordingly as the built environment accounts for nearly forty percent of carbon emissions globally – a figure that includes the construction as well as running emissions of our buildings. To continue to build using substantial quantities of steel, concrete, glass, plastics – highly carbon intensive building materials – will make no positive change to our journey to net zero, and will keep on contributing to the heating of our atmosphere and seas, and to the degradation of our soils. Our objection asks you as a council committee to consider whether we can justifiably approve a structure that in its construction will consume large quantities of raw materials, whose extraction, refinement and use releases significant quantities of carbon into our atmosphere. We ask you to consider what actions the planning committee can take now to lock-in and prevent the release of further atmospheric carbon and the consumption of energy and resources – and ask you to consider your obligations to both present inhabitants of our city and future generations to limit development where it significantly impacts our environment. We note that in Section 3 of the submitted Sustainability and Utilities Report, under the ‘Reduce whole-life CO2equivalent emissions’ that the developers are awaiting a life-cycle carbon assessment by Focus Assessments. These assessments look at the carbon emissions from the materials, construction and use of a building over its expected lifespan. This includes the carbon embodied in the construction materials, the construction process, the energy consumed by the building, and the energy released in its demolition. Steel and concrete construction processes and the nature of the materials are highly carbon intensive – in both their production and at the end of their lifespan. Low rise buildings can be built that have much lower carbon emissions, however conventionally constructed tower blocks are inherently carbon intensive, in their materials, construction and use. We urge the planning committee to seriously consider the impact of the tower block on the target of net zero by 2030 – an ambitious target welcomed as part of the council’s action on the climate crisis. This target date – 8 years from now – is necessary to at least attempt to mitigate increases in atmospheric carbon, and to keep below 1.5-2 degrees of warming. Breaching these temperature increases will result in life-systems altering environmental change and collapse, and it is imperative that we seriously consider all new developments under these criteria. We note the developer’s previous engagement in ethical and environmentally led decision-making processes in their recent, local developments and would urge Igloo to carry out and release a full life-cycle carbon assessment of the tower block prior to planning being granted, and for the planning committee to fully scrutinize the development for its likely impact on the city council’s target of net zero by 2030. If this ambitious target is to be met, and we are to attempt to limit environmental degradation and collapse for ourselves and future generations, it is down to you as members of the planning committee to explore and examine applications for significant and highly energy intensive developments rigorously and with this target in mind. We urge you to reject this application, to ask the developer to explore low-energy intensive development options, and to carry out and submit a whole-life cycle carbon assessment on any future application. Yours faithfully, Dr. Edward Wainwright, Lecturer in Architecture, Climate Literacy Co-Lead, School of Architecture, Planning & Landscape, Newcastle University Dr. Marin Sawa, Hub for Biotechnology in the Built Environment, School of Architecture, Planning & Landscape, Newcastle University Prof. Jeremy W Crampton, Professor of Urban Data Analysis, School of Architecture, Planning & Landscape, Newcastle University Nathan Hudson, Workshop Technician, Sustainability Volunteer - School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, Newcastle University Dr Andrew M Law - Senior Lecturer in Town Planning Oliver Perry - Technical Officer for the Hub for Biotechnology in the Built Environment, School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, Newcastle University Dr. William Thomson - Research Associate, School of Architecture, Planning & Landscape, Newcastle University Harry Thompson, Postgraduate Researcher, School of Architecutre, Planning & Landscape, Newcastle University Dr Clare Vaughan, Researcher, School of Architecture, Planning & Landscape, Newcastle University Julie Rankin, Finance & Operations Administrator, School of Architecture, Planning & Landscape, Newcastle University Dr Julia Heslop, Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Architecture, School of Architecture, Planning & Landscape, Newcastle University Dr Niki Black, Research Associate, School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, Newcastle University Dr Claire Harper, architect and lecturer, School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, Newcastle University Prof. Steve Graham, Professor of Cities & Society, School of Architecture, Planning & Landscape, Newcastle University | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| Planning application reference 2021/2404/01/EIA I am commenting regarding the Malmo Quay Development. The size and appearance of the proposed development is inappropriate when compared against the existing topography of the area and the buildings that will surround it. It is not respectful in its design, and will visually impair the valley's existing heritage sites such as the Grade II Listed Ouseburn School. Igloo has not properly considered the impact of noise pollution from Tyne Bar and other Ouseburn establishments on new residents, and therefore noise complaints are inevitable. This inturn will threaten the existence of the Tyne Bar and its ability to continue to serve the existing community, with its provisions for evening entertainment. Furthermore, much of the area outside the Tyne Bar will be overshadowed, discouraging residents from using the area as a place of recreation, particularly in the summer months where it is often frequented throughout the day. This area has already been landscaped in a way that encourages footfall along the Ouse Valley, which in turn aids existing businesses in the area. I worry that the tower would disrupt this and make the area a less desirable place to frequent recreationally, negatively impacting on the businesses and the quality of life the current community can expect. The plans do not include suitable parking provisions, considering public transport links in the area are minimal and physically strenuous to reach. Making the apartments accessible only to people with private transport. It is therefore likely that the new apartments will cause an influx of traffic into the area, putting increased pressure on the limited on-street parking available and potentially making cycling along the national cycle route dangerous. | 17/02/2022 | Neutral |
| Planning application reference 2021/2404/01/EIA I am commenting regarding the Malmo Quay Development. The size and appearance of the proposed development is inappropriate when compared against the existing topography of the area and the buildings that will surround it. It is not respectful in its design, and will visually impair the valley's existing heritage sites such as the Grade II Listed Ouseburn School. Igloo has not properly considered the impact of noise pollution from Tyne Bar and other Ouseburn establishments on new residents, and therefore noise complaints are inevitable. This inturn will threaten the existence of the Tyne Bar and its ability to continue to serve the existing community, with its provisions for evening entertainment. Furthermore, much of the area outside the Tyne Bar will be overshadowed, discouraging residents from using the area as a place of recreation, particularly in the summer months where it is often frequented throughout the day. This area has already been landscaped in a way that encourages footfall along the Ouse Valley, which in turn aids existing businesses in the area. I worry that the tower would disrupt this and make the area a less desirable place to frequent recreationally, negatively impacting on the businesses and the quality of life the current community can expect. The plans do not include suitable parking provisions, considering public transport links in the area are minimal and physically strenuous to reach. Making the apartments accessible only to people with private transport. It is therefore likely that the new apartments will cause an influx of traffic into the area, putting increased pressure on the limited on-street parking available and potentially making cycling along the national cycle route dangerous. | 17/02/2022 | Neutral |
| I would like to object to the proposed development on the Malmo Quay site. I don't believe the building will bring a positive impact to the area, we will be losing an amazing area with a fantastic view and atmosphere and it will cause significant trade loss to many businesses in the area. It won't be providing affordable housing as the plans are for luxury apartments .The design of the building is not in keeping with the history or with the other buildings in the area. Further to this the size which will impact multiple businesses and residential areas due to over shadowing and infringing on privacy and it is against the tall building policy! There is inadequate parking proposed for the apartments and public transport routes to the area are already very limited. It will result in an impact to traffic and parking in the area which is already a problem, it will also contribute to higher emissions as with greater on street parking requirements there will be inadequate opportunity for electric vehicle points. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I'm very against the development of this tower block, it will greatly destroy the atmosphere and view along the Tyne. Generally, sticking a block at the river edge has very little aesthetic appeal but the tone of it compared to the rest of the quayside would be very jarring. The Malmo quay is a lovely area to enjoy the view and feeling of the quayside, especially in summer when this can be a relaxing grass area (when it's allowed to grow!). It does not match the surrounding area that has kept some of the historical style buildings being reused. The view along the Tyne should be focussed on key aspects such as the bridges, Sage and art gallery not on a block of bricks. It will also most likely block out the light or views from businesses such as the Free Trade, Tyne Bar or the cafes along the riverside walk. This is in addition to how it will affect the flats there being overlooked and in the shadow. This area is also not made for this amount of residents, it is already busy with cars and a difficult flow through. It is a frequently used area for cyclists, runners and dog walkers which could start being put in danger by the increased traffic and space restriction. I also highly doubt they could provide enough parking spaces for the significant increase of cars from those residents which would cause chaos in that area. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I am writing in objection to the proposed development of Malmo Tower, I believe that this tower is an unsightly piece of architecture, which will be seen as nothing more than an embarrassing eye saw to what is currently one of the nicest enclaves in Newcastle. I feel that this tower will dramatically effect local businesses, such as the well established Tyne Bar pub by curtailing there ability to grow through evening based social events at fears of, what I see, as inevitable noise complaints that will be received if this tower were to go ahead. It could further jeopardise the curb appeal of the Free Trade Inn who pride themselves on a clear unobstructed view up the Tyne. Furthermore, in perspective of the area, the Ouseburn is beginning to feel saturated with new developments as it is, and if another new large dense project is to go ahead without improving the capacity of the areas infrastructure then this development is at risk of affecting the residents who currently call Ouseburn home. In summery this development will do nothing to ENHANCE the area around it, but will in fact affect it NEGATIVELY. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| There are numerous unavoidable pitfalls of this proposed building. The first being loss of view for the nearby businesses, such as The Free Trade Inn, resulting in a loss of trade. Businesses such as the free trade inn and the Tyne Bar would also suffer from increased shade due to the shadow cast by this proposed structure, again leading to loss of trade for said businesses. Furthermore, the infrastructure of the surrounding area is not capable of managing the increased traffic caused by such a development. Roads in this area are frequently congested and would not withstand further traffic. Further traffic would also result in noise pollution - affecting nearby businesses and tourism to the quayside. Ultimately, the proposed building would be extremely detrimental to the success of nearby businesses and to the attractiveness of the area to potential tourists and visitors. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to this development, due to the environment destruction this would cause. A huge tower block is not inkeeping with the area. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to this development, due to the environment destruction this would cause. A huge tower block is not inkeeping with the area. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to the proposed development at Malmo Quay (2021/2404/01/EIA) particularly the proposed 18 storey tower block of 62 apartments on the Quayside for the following reasons: 1. The design and huge scale of the tower block is not in keeping with the local area. It is too big and dwarfs the other business and residences already in the area and is not inkeeping with the industrial heritage of the Ouseburn- several buildings are listed and many industrial buildings have been repurposed. This would NOT fit with the surrounding area. 2. The size- height and mass- of the proposed tower block would overshadow the businesses and residential buildings already in the area- blocking daylight and sunlight. In addition, the proposed tower block would mean existing residences and beer gardens would be overlooked and lose privacy. 3. The parking is insufficient. The proposed 18 parking spaces for the 62 apartments in the tower block is not adequate. Also the seperate application for 76 parking spaces on spillers wharf would not be built for at least 3 years and would also be serving an additional 73 apartments and would be being built on the grounds of an already full carpark- this is ridiculous and makes no sense. 4. There is lack of bus routes in the area and a steep uphill walk to the 2 nearest metro stations meaning that residents to the proposed tower block would need a car- putting extra pressure on already busy and narrow road infrastructure (in addition to problems from insufficient parking). This could also pose a danger to cyclists using the national cycle route 62 on the quayside. I enjoy visiting the Ouseburn most weekends and have done for over 20 years. It is a social and community hub- I enjoy visiting the pubs to see friends, family and enjoy music- particularly The Free trade and Tyne Bar which would be affected negatively by the proposed development. I also enjoy using the cycle route and walking from Ouseburn to Quayside- a peaceful place to enjoy pockets of nature and food and drink from small independent businesses. The combination of green space and industrial heritage is special and quite unique. The roads are already too busy for their narrow size- with the pressure from recent new apartment blocks- and the proposed application would increase this further- as well as reduce air quality , increase pollution and the monstrosity of the huge tower block would spoil the surrounding areas, industrial look and heritage. Please do not build it. Save the Ouseburn. Georgia | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I object, raising deep concerns and reservations with regards to the development of the Malmo Quay as part of the Newcastle Riverside. This new addition of various buildings and locations will severely encroach the appeal of the area, with such developments hindering not just the appearance but also local businesses. The City Centre landscape would be changed forever with such action. Many people, local and tourist flock to the Ouseburn neighbourhood to experience the wonderful City River views, while partaking in building revenue for the local community by engaging in the local businesses in and around. These proposed new buildings would drastically influence the public behaviour ten fold with many people withdrawing any interest of visiting Ouseburn again. A restless atmosphere will be born from such a decision. The Riverside and its wonderful landscape will be sadly, forever tainted with buildings that in several years will look out of date. This area is rich in favours and hospitality from all who live and work within. I am deeply concerned that changing the current landscape of such an area would have a profound impact on the local community and cultural tourism. Graeme Hopper. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I am writing in support of this development as a regular to the Ouseburn and former resident in the area. Whilst I understand some of the concerns such as those around parking and scale (which could be addressed) I think many of the other comments, including on social media and in sections of the local press, seem far-fetched and a play, oftentimes, upon growing divisions within the city which I find rather saddening, particularly as it is frequently minorities that bear the brunt of such division. I also write knowing that wider concerns about housing in the country need to be addressed such as those of increased social housing, rent stability, affordability overall. It seems many of these wider issues have centred on this particular scheme and the tower. This being said, as a gay man who has grown up - out of some level of necessity - in urban environments, including many a city centre flat either alone or as part of a couple, I perhaps look at this proposal a bit differently. Newcastle has nearly lost an entire green belt to hundreds upon hundreds of identikit private sector homes marketed to the nuclear family at a high price as part of central government ‘levelling up’, homes nearly all built by the largest corporate housebuilders with shareholders to appear ie. New-builds marketed to families in the burbs for £300K+. Seldom have I seen a tweet nor Chronicle article about this mammoth loss of green belt, perhaps as these homes are marketed to and appease a heterosexual majority. I find it perplexing that an entire green belt can be lost in quiet and a scheme designed with some level of architectural expertise on brownfield land that does not require a two-car commute from the suburbs can garner such hostile reaction, including cries of being a “cathedral city” as if it’s the 1800s. It is clear the architects have set the tower back to mitigate the implications to the view from the Free Trade and this could perhaps be amended further. The design is also striking when we have a decimated green belt full of beige boxes with flood-risk driveways for two, three, four Boris Britain cars. This scheme would also help connect the city centre along the riverfront. It makes complete sense to me to concentrate more people in the urban core rather than continue to expand outwards. There is a need for homes and a diversity of homes, especially now that the region’s population decline has finally started to slow after decades of young people having to leave for jobs elsewhere. Further, the proposed floor-plans would also seem to appeal to many non-normative households such as single people, couples without children, LGBTQ+ people who may not have children yet or who may not wish to raise children, those with accessibility needs and/or a need to be closer to work in the city centre, graduates and younger people. I understand concerns as to gentrification and creativity (the need to manage development mix carefully) but as a gig-goer in the Ouseburn for over two decades, I have never seen The Cluny, The Ship, Free Trade or Tyne Bar busier than in recent years prior to the pandemic. There has also been an expanse of the bar scene and new creative venues appearing on the fringe of the Ouseburn and in neighbouring Shieldfield and then Byker and Shields Road, all of which could house an even larger and more diverse creative population over time with careful planning and management. As I understand it, this site (East Quayside and not the Ouseburn) always had planning for a high block of flats dating back to the 1990s as part of the Mariners Wharf scheme. This seldom seems mentioned in a heated online commentary of either/or which oftentimes seems to be bordering on hateful and disproving of anything a bit different to the dross we have on the city’s outer ring. Scale and parking could be revised but overall I find this development rather unique and one of good sense in the face of a climate emergency. | 17/02/2022 | Support |
| Looks awful, terrible for the environment, local businesses and local residents. Massive visual impact on one of the most beloved landscapes of newcastle. Please do not let this awful building happen!!! | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I am objecting to the Malmo Quay Development proposed for the Newcastle Quayside/Ouseburn area. I believe this to be a highly inappropriate development in terms of it's scale and size, forever changing the existing built area for the worst. This development will not enhance the area and will negatively impact the historic listed buildings and the heritage assets such as the Ouseburn School and Sailors Bethel. The tower block is in contravention of the Newcastle SPD on Tall Buildings as it is significantly taller than any other buildings within the surrounding area. The Tyne Gorge Study 2003 also shows high rise developments such as this would cause loss of the gorge as a feature. The transport links to this site are just not adequate, with no bus routes passing the site and a long steep walk to the nearest metro stations. The council have declared a climate emergency but are happy to approve large scale housing developments which will only increase the car use within the city. The electric car charging points are too few and of poor quality, a full charge would take over 30 hours. There is not enough parking available for what could be 124 cars if every flat owns 2 cars which is not impossible, creating pressure on surrounding on-street parking. The removal of the current cycle hub surely goes against the councils plans to encourage and increase active travel! The design of this type of structure and size means that there will be significant amounts of sunlight being blocked out for a number of residential and commercial properties in the immediate area creating overshowing including the Free Trade Inn and Tyne Bar Public House. The design is simply not sympathetic or in keeping with the surrounding buildings, it's just another example of developers wanting to maximise and prioritise their profit instead of trying to work with an area to benefit and enhance it. | 17/02/2022 | |
| I am objecting to the Malmo Quay Development proposed for the Newcastle Quayside/Ouseburn area. I believe this to be a highly inappropriate development in terms of it's scale and size, forever changing the existing built area for the worst. This development will not enhance the area and will negatively impact the historic listed buildings and the heritage assets such as the Ouseburn School and Sailors Bethel. The tower block is in contravention of the Newcastle SPD on Tall Buildings as it is significantly taller than any other buildings within the surrounding area. The Tyne Gorge Study 2003 also shows high rise developments such as this would cause loss of the gorge as a feature. The transport links to this site are just not adequate, with no bus routes passing the site and a long steep walk to the nearest metro stations. The council have declared a climate emergency but are happy to approve large scale housing developments which will only increase the car use within the city. The electric car charging points are too few and of poor quality, a full charge would take over 30 hours. There is not enough parking available for what could be 124 cars if every flat owns 2 cars which is not impossible, creating pressure on surrounding on-street parking. The removal of the current cycle hub surely goes against the councils plans to encourage and increase active travel! The design of this type of structure and size means that there will be significant amounts of sunlight being blocked out for a number of residential and commercial properties in the immediate area creating overshowing including the Free Trade Inn and Tyne Bar Public House. The design is simply not sympathetic or in keeping with the surrounding buildings, it's just another example of developers wanting to maximise and prioritise their profit instead of trying to work with an area to benefit and enhance it. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to the proposal on the below grounds: Height and Scale The scale of the 18 storey block would overshadow surrounding areas. The number of PV panels on the roof of 'tower building' will not be enough to power up anything substantial in the building (per document MQ-WAB-01-RF-DR-A-01025) thus are likely included in the design simply to give the illusion of environmentally friendly design. The number of panels is more suited to a building with fewer storeys. If the number of storeys is reduced, the panels would be more suitable for generating the building’s electricity. The top floors of the proposed 18-storey building will be overlooking almost all of the flats in the Malings, which lead to loss of privacy for the Malings residents. This shows a lack of regard for existing residents. Means of Access, Parking, Servicing, Traffic Generation, Highway Safety Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. After the Q3 bus stop was cancelled in front of the Cycle Hub, there is no plan whatsoever from the Council to reinstate this station. Access to the bus stop outside top floor of the Toffee Factory is severely restricted, with these reasons: (1) Toffee Factory is commercial building which does not allow you to use their escalator; (2) there are several flights of stairs for you to climb to get to that bus stop; (3) this particular bus stop is so small next to a main road, you would not want to stand there to wait for the bus. Frequency of Q3 needs to be largely increased to enhance the incentive to local and incoming residents to make use of buses. Access to the two nearest metro stations (i.e. Byker or Gateshead Exchange) both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. The latest quality annual status report published in June 2021 found that the main pollutant of concern is nitrogen dioxide (NO2) with the largest contributions being from road vehicles. With the above points in mind, It is unclear how the current proposed development is in keeping with the low emission zone element of the Urban Core Area Action Plan given that the proposed site is not serviced by any bus routes and the nearest metro stations both being up steep gradients. The gradients will mean those with limited or impaired mobility will struggle to reach these stations, and without adequate access to public transport for those whose mobility is not impaired it is reasonable to presume that the majority of prospective tenants will be relying on cars to commute to a workplace and/or move around the area. This could lead to significant decreases in the air quality in and around the Ouseburn Valley, as well as the surrounding Quayside which is largely used by the general public. Rising traffic volumes and associated traffic congestion was a key sustainability issue outlined in the May 2020 report by Newcastle Council. Given the above points it is unclear how the proposed development is aiding the resolve of this issue or how it will mitigate it. Effect on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas There are currently 12 listed buildings within the Valley’s conservation area, 8 of which are grade II. Historic England states such buildings are of “special interest warranting every effort to preserve them”. A key aspect in maintaining and preserving such buildings is, by default, preservation of the character and history of the surrounding build area – Para 127 (c) of the National Planning Policy Framework reinforces this point by stipulating that developments must be “sympathetic to local character and history”. It is unclear how the proposed 18-storey tower block meets this requirement with its placement far above the Valley’s skyline, or how it adds to the historic value of the Valley. This may lead to a decrease in the overall historic value and surrounding listed buildings. For example, the 18-storey building would overshadow the Toffee Factory, an architecturally significant site. It is also taller than the statue on top of Horatio Street. This shows a lack of understanding or care for the aesthetics and history of the surrounding area. - Second, the proposed development does not meet the standards required under the applicable planning policies and guidance. Under DM20, developments are required to demonstrate “a positive response to topography, natural and built landscapes”. Similarly, Q01 requires developments to respect “the scale, plot sizes, topography and historic grain of the area”. An 18 storey tower in this location does not comply with either of these policies, when the existing built environment surrounding the site consists mostly of 3-5 storey buildings. From almost all of the verified views, the tower even rises above the horizon to the north and east of the site, failing to respect the topography of the surrounding area as well. I note the Planning Statement references the Tall Buildings SPD in support of the proposed 18 storey tower. Under Criterion 2 of the SPD, “Tall buildings should be sited in areas of the city that have minimal visual impact on sensitive historic environments. Retaining and enhancing key strategic views through the careful siting of tall buildings is a key objective”. It is apparent to anyone looking at the verified views that the impact of the proposed 18 storey tower on the Ouseburn Valley can hardly be classified as “minimal”. Similarly, by obscuring views of the Glasshouse Bridge, Tyne Bar, and the Free Trade Inn from the Quayside and the Millennium Bridge (not to mention the views looking west from these locations), the proposal does not “retain and enhance” these key views. Under Criterion 3 of the SPD, tall buildings should not “visually impinge on the setting of/or important views of listed buildings or conservation areas”. Again, it cannot be argued that the proposed tower does not visually impinge on the Lower Ouseburn Valley conservation area when it is at least 10 storeys higher than any existing building to the north of the site. The Planning Statement also references the Design Guidance for Landmarks and Gateways in Newcastle’s Urban Core document in support of the proposed 18 storey tower. This document requires that landmark buildings and structures “enhance the skyline, streetscape and important views”, “respect the positive elements of their context, the city’s topography and landscape”, and “conserve or enhance the significance of heritage assets and their setting and views”. On all three tests, the proposed 18 storey tower fails badly – it is not architecturally significant enough to enhance the skyline as a unique landmark building, nor does it respect or conserve the site’s context and surrounding heritage assets for the reasons mentioned above. It is simply inaccurate for the Planning Statement to claim “the Proposed Development includes a tall building which will complement the existing cityscape”, when the existing cityscape is predominantly 3-5 storey buildings. While the Design Guidance for Landmarks and Gateways in Newcastle’s Urban Core document identifies the site as an “Area in Need of Enhancement”, this is not a license for extreme scale and massing in this location – medium density housing like the 3 storey townhouses contained within this proposal are far more appropriate and generally comply with the above planning policies and planning guidance. Additionally, Para 130 of the NPPF states “planning should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an areas and the way it functions”. The current proposal appears to do little in the way of improving the quality of the area beyond providing housing on an unused site that could be put to better use as a communal space for local residents. Para 14.87 of the Urban Core Policies document states that the strategy will seek to “maintain local distinctiveness” whilst protecting and enhancing the historic and natural environments. It is unclear how an 18-storey beige tower block is congruent with the Valley’s industrial heritage or distinctiveness, or how it will contribute to the conservation of this rich historic Valley. The build will dominate the sky line and its proposed position is inappropriate and unwelcome by the local community. - Policy UC13 “Respecting and Managing Views Within, From and Into the Urban Core” dictates the views that must be respected when considering developments include those “of designated heritage assets, other distinctive landmark buildings and structures”. The proposed tower block will not only obstruct the view of the Ouseburn Valley – a valued heritage asset of Newcastle, but will also potentially block the view of the Tyne and Millennium bridge from certain areas of the Valley – a key reason many visitors venture down the Valley which may inadvertently have a negative impact on the local economy. The block may possibility obstruct views of the Toffee Factory from the Gateshead side of the Quay which would be detract from the overall industrial heritage of the Valley given the factories grade listing and the integral part it has played in the Valleys history. The integrity of the views of the listed Ouseburn School may also be at risk by the tower block. The proposed development does not appear to have been “especially sensitive” to the historic context of the Valley as stipulated in Para 14.99 of the Urban Core Policies document. Given that the original Malings development was refused twice on the grounds of “insensitive and poor quality design”, it is absurd to accept a proposal that will see an 18-storey beige tower block dominate the Valley’s skyline. Housing As identified in the Sustainability Appraisal Post-Adoption statement published in May 2020, a “shortage of affordable housing of an appropriate standard” is one of the key sustainability issues affecting Newcastle. Research by the New Economics Foundation, published in December 2021, showed that 5% of houses built in Newcastle between 2019-20 were affordable housing with an estimated 0% due to be built should building costs rise the projected 20%. This is a deepening crisis that will have severe long-term consequences on the whole of Newcastle. The proposed development plans reflect more land grabs by private property developers who’s benefactors will be limited to a handful of individuals at the detriment of the surrounding communities and local residents. As well as the 5710 households currently awaiting social housing in Newcastle. The proposal appears to be prioritizing profit of private developers over the needs of the local community (residents and businesses) and environment. - The first planning obligation laid out in the Supplementary Planning Document is Affordable Housing. This specifies that any builds with 15 units or more must have 20% of such units reserved for affordable rented housing with the provision secured on site. The current proposals make no mention of affordable housing being provided across the development for Newcastle and it’s residents. This development risks entrenching inaccessibility to affordable housing whilst doing nothing to contribute toward solutions to the problem. Access to Open Spaces Another sustainability issue outlined in the aforementioned report is a “lack of access to and quality of open spaces”. The proposed development sits on an unused site that presents a wonderful opportunity to be developed into an open space that can be enjoyed by all of Newcastle’s resident rather than a limited number who will be able to afford these luxury properties, an ongoing issue within the wider context of the gentrification of the Ouseburn Valley. The proposed development is completely out of keeping with the surrounding areas of Byker and Walker that are suffering from poor housing and underfunding of public services. Refurbishing the unused space into a space that services and enhances the local community would increase general wellbeing of local residents. Given that Newcastle has one of the highest rates of destitution in the UK (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2020) this could provide many more opportunities to uplift and empower local communities than the proposed development which is likely to ostracise them through gentrification. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I am strongly opposed to the proposed development. The scale and size of the tower is completely out of the step with the rest of the buildings in the surrounding area and will dominate the local skyline in a negative manner. With the proposed design of the tower block being a complete eye sore, that detracts from the historic industrial buildings of Ouseburn and the quayside. There will also be a significant negative detrimental effect on the local parking which is already strained. With many streets having effectively single lane traffic due to the number of cars parked on the side of the road. The Malmo development would only make this problem worse, with the proposal being 62 flats with only 18 car parking spaces. The justification of extra spaces created at spillars wharf should not be taken into account as they are not part of the actual proposal and wont be ready for 3-4 years. Along with also having those spaces also being required to service the flats on the spillars wharf development. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| Dear Committee, What I write here are thoughts that you have probably already read in the what I don’t doubt are numerous objections already put forward to this development. But still I pray that you will genuinely read and consider each and every objection that is put forward and hear how important it is to not just Ouesburn's residents and businesses- but also the whole of Newcastle- that this proposed development does not go ahead. Ouesburn truly is a place like no other, and it only takes a short walk through the valley to witness and experience that. There is literally nowhere else like it in Newcastle- dare I say the country- where you can get such a unique cultural scene within ten minutes of a city centre. I know from personal experience of showing friends the area that it’s beautiful blend of industrial and natural landscaping is the envy of other cities. This is a community and environment that has developed organically from the bottom up and taken many years to get to this stage and yet which faces being completely undone and ruined with one development. It’s undoubtable that the area’s character has already been diluted thanks to the other housing projects built in the name of ‘progress’ and ‘redevelopment’. These were well opposed to during their planning phases, yet those who don’t live or engage with the area ignored the views of those who were most important, with the consequences left to be felt by them and them alone. The fact that planning has got to this stage makes me sad at the apparent priorities of our Council. With no affordable housing to be found in this tower block, arguably the most impressive view of the entire river- the jewel of our proud city- will now be accessible only to those who have the money to purchase second properties- and which a good majority of these will most likely end up being. It is also yet to be explained why such an enormous building is being situated on such a small plot of land, for it undoubtedly cannot be for a lack of options. One only has to take a drive over the Redheugh Bridge to see the acres of unused wasteland to the West of the city that is not only in dire need of regeneration, but is actually closer to the city centre. No doubt building here wouldn’t be as financially appealing to the developers, however you, the Council, are here to serve the people of Newcastle, not a corporation based hundreds of miles away in London. PFP Igloo state they “believe when communities are actively involved in the development of their area, better places are created with thriving vibrant neighbourhoods.” We already know this; for Ouesburn is indeed a thriving, vibrant neighbourhood and became so due solely to it’s community being actively involved and not in any way down to an external, money-oriented company. The very fact that so many small businesses are objecting to having an increased number of local residents (i.e. customers) on their doorstep, surely shows the scale of feeling against this development and how the area’s community means more than any financial benefits. As a Council, you should be brimming with pride of Ouesburn, it’s unique character and community and be fighting tooth and nail to protect it’s heritage and landscape. Please don’t be the committee that makes this irreversible decision to kill off one of the most beautiful areas in the entire region. Yours, James Hayes | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I am writing about the proposed development of Malmo Quay, to which I firmly object. Based upon the photos at malmospillers.co.uk, the size of the central tower block seems to be entirely out of keeping with the surrounding environment. Its height would dominate the area; its great bulk a single oppressive weight in what is currently a much needed breathing space between the more modern developments on the Quayside and the heritage architecture of the Ouseburn. The plot is far too small for the number of storeys proposed and the town houses seem to cluster the base of the tower as an embarrased fig-leaf for the poor quality of the design and the chosen finishes. Comparing and contrasting with the sensitive restoration of the Toffee Factory, and the difference is clear to see. The views along the Tyne will be spoiled by such an insensitive addition, crucially obstructing the famous view from the Free Trade Inn, and the banks of the hill behind the Tyne Bar. The key problem would, of course, be the central tower, but the cafe building perched at the very edge of the plot, with its three or four storeys would also be an issue - jutting upward so suddenly and immediately blocking sightlines. Perhaps a new design might leave the very edge of the plot as a space for picnics, with greenery and benches, the cafe - single storey - behind, moving gradually up in height to the townhouses and a central building (rather than tower block) a couple of storeys higher than the neighbouring houses. That way, the sweep of the buildings would work both in the space and to maintain the pleasant views. Of course, more suitable building materials might need to be proposed to link new and old architecture. Speaking honestly, this current proposal seems to have been offered with a primary focus on housing density and thus developer profit. It does not care one jot for the character, history or indeed the future of this important part of Newcastle, and I hope that it is rejected in its current form. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| The Tyne gorge is recognised around the world for it's attractive and historic buildings, the views from and of it's bridges. Development over the years has been in a mix of styles, but each new building has typically respected the scale and form of its neighbours, forming a continuity along the quayside. There is no precedent for a building of this height - and the proposed building on one of the only remaining plots is unlikely to be the precedent for any further high-rise buildings. Stated Newcastle planning policy makes it clear that designs which are inappropriate in their context should not be accepted. Although the special location (on a peninsula at the mouth of the ouseburn) may be appropriate for a taller building, the only justification for making a massive jump to 18 stories seems to be commercial and is not an appopriate response to the unique setting of the tyne gorge, the scale of its existing buildings, or its views. Similar objections apply to the impact on the Ouseburn valley, where recent new buildings are of a scale that matches existing historic buildings such as the Toffee Factory, Hotel du Vin and Glasshouse bridge. The proposed tall building will tower over them, and does not respect their context or setting. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I am disappointed in these proposals for Malmö and Spillers Quays. Personally, I have always thought that it was undesirable to build on these sites, not least because of future risk of flooding (Spillers Quay already floods at times and international predictions of rises in sea levels indicate that the whole of both quays could be under water within 30-50 years; the sewage plant under Malmö Quay; the lack of solid ground unencumbered by pipes. This is a visually sensitive location with clear views to and from the Millennium Bridge and visible from many areas of this section of the Tyne Gorge, from both sides of the river. It is also environmentally sensitive, bordering the Tyne and the mouth of the Ouseburn, and attracting a lot of wildlife (birds, fish, otters, the occasional seal). It is also close to the Lower Ouseburn Conservation Area and in the area of Newcastle’s first industrial quarter from the early 17th century. I understand that decisions were taken some time ago that mean buildings, mostly residential buildings, will be constructed on these two quays regardless of objections but think that the design of the massing, layout and aesthetics of proposed developments could be much better. The current proposals appear not to take into account transport issues, with the Malmö housing being built first with a very small number of parking spaces for residents on the site (other parking space to be provided on the more distant end of the Spillers site several years later, apparently). This area no longer has a bus route along the Quayside and the route to supermarkets and schools is up the sides of the Tyne Gorge. It is unrealistic to expect most residents to manage without cars or public transport. The proposed tower for Malmö Quay is particularly bulky and completely out of scale with its surroundings on its North elevation - and the designers seem not to have thought about its appearance from the side that most people will approach it and view it. In general, it is going to look very bulky in plain brick anyway (a skin of glazed bricks in verdigris or pale sky blue could look a bit better). The design appears to positively encourage the establishment of a bird colony which - whilst great for the gulls, possibly kittiwakes, and pigeons - would soon make the area less ideal for humans. Gulls, pigeons and kittiwakes were used to using Spillers Mill as a place to nest and sit so likely to see opportunities in a new tall building. The tower would also cast a long shadow over quite a large area, mostly where people are. The other blocks of housing on Malmö are disappointing also in not looking like a world-class design nor in keeping with the Lower Ouseburn area. Spillers Quay, even though just an outline application, is setting out a massing and layout that seems not to have progressed beyond thinking ‘what is the area that can be built upon?’ These blocks will cut off views of the rivers that people really appreciate, that are a big part of the reason why people want to spend time in the area. The buildings will look high and bulky and as if they’re cutting off the river from people and cast shadows on the North side - the side from which people will approach them. Again, they seem not to relate to Ouseburn, the Tyne, or Newcastle in their design. Finally, I object to the demolition of the existing Cycle Hub building. This is a nice design of building (with marine references) for providing, and supporting the use of, cycles (which the city wants to encourage), providing a community hub with its cafe and space for evening events, and office space. This is an existing asset that could help foster a sense of community amongst the existing community and new residents. The land it sits on would be unsuited to a taller, residential building - and it is not a sustainable approach to knock down buildings fit for purpose or to remove useful facilities, especially those that help to provide environmentally-friendly transport. I would like to see this application withdrawn and thoroughly reconsidered (if building has to happen, Malmö and Spillers need to be designed together). Newcastle deserves better design than this. These proposals are not good enough for these sensitive sites. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I sincerely object to the Malmo Quay plans to overtake the most incredible views of Newcastle. I am 24 years of age and I really hope and pray to see this view for many years to come. When I was younger I have fond memories of roly polying down that hill and I really hope when I have children one day, they will get to do the same when seeing the view of Newcastle. It is one of the simplest pleasures of Newcastle. This project will completely spoil the whole Ouseburn community and have a detrimental impact on incredible local businesses and surrounding neighbours. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I am writing to you to oppose the planned Malmo Quay development. After seeing the plans of the development I would like to express my deep concern over the prospective building work. The design shown in the plans do not reflect the buildings surrounding the Quayside and the Ouseburn area, an area rich in history with distinctive buildings. The size and shape of the development stick out like sore thumb and will ruin the city's much unique river view. The area is home to several listed buildings with great historical assets to the area and this new building will alter the site line and take away from its heritage As you know, near the vicinity we have- Grade II Listed Ouseburn School Sailors Bethal Tyne Bar Public House Toffee Factory Glasshouse Bridge Also this new development will be seen alongside other historical monuments nearby such as BALTIC and the bridges. A building of this size will have a huge impact in terms of blocking sunlight and casting a shadow including significant impact on existing businesses and residential properties. Not to mention the local residents of Mariners Wharf, Malings, Steenberg Yard, City Peaks may be impacted by potential loss of sunlight / overshadowing of their homes. Newcastle Quayside has a distinct sloping landscape that has been celebrated and appreciated right back to Roman times, it is a part of our history. To have a great big tower right next to the river will spoil this bank view that people love seeing when visiting the city. Judging by the proposals I do not understand how the design of the building fits and reflects the local atmosphere of Ouseburn, the materials used and the shape of the building bears no resemblance to nearby buildings nore does it celebrate the area and its industrial past. I also do not understand how a development that large will be able to cope with the infrastructure already in place? How will it account for the amount of vehicles from new residents and will extra roads be built? I do not believe the current highway and public transport infrastructure around this area can not support a development of this size. Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. Parking; The submitted plans for Malmo Quay appear to only show 18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block, woefully inadequate and guaranteed to put even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route 72 which runs along the Quayside. And lastly what will the impact on local conservation be, and has this been considered when looking at the proposed development? The Quayside and Ouseburn have a rich ecosystem with returning wildlife, for example the returning Kittiwake, how will this building adapt to these returning birds and what will it's impact be on them? After considering all of the above points, after great reflection on the current plans in place and as a resident of Newcastle city I strongly oppose this development, I hope these plans are not approved and the building work does not go ahead. | 17/02/2022 | Neutral |
| In reference to the following application (2021/2404/01/EIA 'Malmo Quay' development) I object strongly to the proposal. The tower block is an eyesore, the size of it totally overwhelms the surrounding geography, and the overall development not in keeping with the area. It will restrict the view along the river which is a huge draw to the surrounding Ouseburn area and quayside. I have not spoken to a single person who feels like this is a beneficial development. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I object for the following reasons: 1. The proposed tower block is too high. It will damage the skyline as it is not in keeping with the area. 2. Allowing this tower block will pave the way for more tower blocks to be built works the quayside area. 3. It many tower blocks in the local area already struggle to find buyers (look on rightmove) meaning this has the potential to become an embarrassing stain on Newcastle. 4. It will damage the views of the Free Trade Inn. 5. Quayside is a stunningly beautiful marvel. The views currently rank with any other world famous city - allowing this tower block will damage that. 6. Quayside and it’s associated unique views belong to the people of Newcastle. They should not be sold off. 7. The iconic view of the city from metro side of the city (going towards Sunderland) will be destroyed by this tower block. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I object for the following reasons: 1. The proposed tower block is too high. It will damage the skyline as it is not in keeping with the area. 2. Allowing this tower block will pave the way for more tower blocks to be built works the quayside area. 3. It many tower blocks in the local area already struggle to find buyers (look on rightmove) meaning this has the potential to become an embarrassing stain on Newcastle. 4. It will damage the views of the Free Trade Inn. 5. Quayside is a stunningly beautiful marvel. The views currently rank with any other world famous city - allowing this tower block will damage that. 6. Quayside and it’s associated unique views belong to the people of Newcastle. They should not be sold off. 7. The iconic view of the city from metro side of the city (going towards Sunderland) will be destroyed by this tower block. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I object for the following reasons: 1. The proposed tower block is too high. It will damage the skyline as it is not in keeping with the area. 2. Allowing this tower block will pave the way for more tower blocks to be built works the quayside area. 3. It many tower blocks in the local area already struggle to find buyers (look on rightmove) meaning this has the potential to become an embarrassing stain on Newcastle. 4. It will damage the views of the Free Trade Inn. 5. Quayside is a stunningly beautiful marvel. The views currently rank with any other world famous city - allowing this tower block will damage that. 6. Quayside and it’s associated unique views belong to the people of Newcastle. They should not be sold off. 7. The iconic view of the city from metro side of the city (going towards Sunderland) will be destroyed by this tower block. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I object for the following reasons: 1. The proposed tower block is too high. It will damage the skyline as it is not in keeping with the area. 2. Allowing this tower block will pave the way for more tower blocks to be built works the quayside area. 3. It many tower blocks in the local area already struggle to find buyers (look on rightmove) meaning this has the potential to become an embarrassing stain on Newcastle. 4. It will damage the views of the Free Trade Inn. 5. Quayside is a stunningly beautiful marvel. The views currently rank with any other world famous city - allowing this tower block will damage that. 6. Quayside and it’s associated unique views belong to the people of Newcastle. They should not be sold off. 7. The iconic view of the city from metro side of the city (going towards Sunderland) will be destroyed by this tower block. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I object for the following reasons: 1. The proposed tower block is too high. It will damage the skyline as it is not in keeping with the area. 2. Allowing this tower block will pave the way for more tower blocks to be built works the quayside area. 3. It many tower blocks in the local area already struggle to find buyers (look on rightmove) meaning this has the potential to become an embarrassing stain on Newcastle. 4. It will damage the views of the Free Trade Inn. 5. Quayside is a stunningly beautiful marvel. The views currently rank with any other world famous city - allowing this tower block will damage that. 6. Quayside and it’s associated unique views belong to the people of Newcastle. They should not be sold off. 7. The iconic view of the city from metro side of the city (going towards Sunderland) will be destroyed by this tower block. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I would like to object to this proposal based on three key aspects the proposed Malmo Quay neglects: Design, Scaling and Overshadowing. 1. Design- When analysing the character of the Ouseburn valley importance is placed on the industrial heritage and on the artistic contributions the valley lends to the City of Newcastle. The proposed design ignores the level of detailing appropriate to the valley such as the cast iron columns and brick arches found in listed landmarks such as 36 Lime Street or the Ouseburn Viaduct bridge. Even closer to the Malmo Quays site, The Grade II* Listed Former Ouseburn School is located which exhibits delicate care to detailing as design. The current proposed Malmo Quays design is sparse and lacklustre and appears to reference post war Britain architecture such as Park Hill in Sheffield. 2. Scaling- In this category the tower speaks for itself. Looking around the Quayside and Ouseburn Valley, the scale is completely out of proportion. 3.Overshadowing- The building will overshadow many of the establishments such as Di Meos, the Tyne bar and The Free Trade Inn. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| The scale of the development is completely out of keeping with other buildings in the area and design is out of character and unsympathetic to the surrounding buildings and existing heritage sites. The proposed car parking provisions for the building are woefully inadequate for the proposed number of flats. Quality of life will be reduced for current residents in the Ouseburn from overshadowing, noise and pollution from construction. Local businesses will be affected from the construction noise and disturbance. The tower block seems to be an example of cramming as many flats into the space as possible without consideration to quality of life for residents or for existing residents and businesses in the area. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| Good evening, My formal objection to the Malmo Quay (2021/2404/01/EIA) proposal is based on the proposed tower block development: - Firstly it appears to be completely incongruous in the planned site due to elevation and aesthetic, resembling something from a dystopian 1970s J. G. Ballard novel. Local historic buildings and recent developments will be overshadowed and the area's aethestic flow disrupted. The demolition of similar buildings in the past 20 years doesn't seem to correlate with the sudden need for another. - Provision for residential considerations such as providing additional parking in an already congested area seems to have been overlooked in terms of scale. Local roads are also already prone to gridlock, and there are limited options for local shopping. This makes these flats less desirable for actual residents and makes me think that a large proportion of these flats could end up as part-time tourist rental accommodation. Although this will provide some economic boost, particularly for the town's bars and restaurants, local businesses are likely to see less of a return, and may cause damaging effects due to boom and bust rental markets, particularly given recent fall-out during the pandemic. - The prominence of the building will have a knock-on effect of overshadowing areas in the Ouseburn for several hours a day, again to the detriment of local business with outdoor areas, and current residents health and wellbeing. Yours, Jonathan Bradley, 46 Baret Rd, NE6 4HY | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I object due to the devastating impact that this will have on the cultural richness of the Ouseburn and the historical views across the city enjoyed by residents and visitors alike. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I would like to object to this plan as i simple do not believe it fits into its surroundings in Ouseburn. I do not believe an 18 story tower block is suiting with such historic Buildings such as the Glasshouse Bridge and the Ouseburn School. I also seriously object to this plan due to to the traffic that will be generated by such a large of new residents to an area that already has poor transport links. Combine this lack of transport with the completely inadequate parking included and i do not understand how this proposal can go ahead. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| Is this a social experiment to see how far you can miss the mark with an addition to the area? Has anyone in the planning process for this ever been to the ouseburn before? You guys could have at least pretended you cared and understood about the character of the locale before drafting up this monstrosity. What a horrendous, out of touch idea. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| As a local restaurant situated on Stepney Bank (Thali Tray), we wish to object the proposed planning application (2021/2404/01/EIA) of the Malmo Quay development. Not only do the plans fall short of planning standards but risk damaging the historic character of Quayside. The Ouseburn and Quayside are already populated areas that lack appropriate public transport, the proposed development will hugely increase congestion, particularly in peak times. The lack of parking for the development will create further problems for parking all around Ouseburn, which may deter visitors coming to the area. In addition, the scale of the proposed development will overshadow some historic existing businesses and local residential properties. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I am writing to express my objection to the planning application 2021/2404/01/EIA. The development of an 18 storey tower on the Malmo Quay site and an 8 storey tower on the Spillers Wharf site is not in keeping with the character of the area. The majority of high rise residential tower blocks have been developed on the periphery of the city. The exception being the Baltic Quays where there was limited residential development in place prior to development. The height of the tower will alter the rhythm of the buildings on the Quayside and it's design does not reflect or appreciate the stature and heritage of nearby landmarks. In addition there are limited metro and bus links at the Malmo Quay and Spillers Wharf site. The nature of a hybrid application also makes it difficult to assess both proposed developments. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| Several objections 1. the appearance of the proposed building is not in keeping with the surrounding environment. There are no other buildings of this height in this vicinity so it destroys the skyline and looks totally out of place. The design has no aesthetic appeal and will doubtless age very badly becoming a regretted monstrosity for the next generation to have to live with. There are many historical buildings on the quayside and this will tarnish them all 2. accessibility - there is very limited public transport to this area - it being a significant walk from the train and metro stations. 3 very limited plans re parking . It is already difficult to park in this area for people with mobility problems and this will make it worse 4. The height of the building will impact on the light reaching surrounding structures and make the area seem and feel cold rather than warm and inviting | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| The Ouseburn is unique to the City in style, appeal and purpose. It is a social hub that attracts tourism to its hospitality venues for not only live music events but for the views of the quayside and tyne. This construction will damage the ouseburn beyond repair in reputation and appeal, and quite frankly given the volume of vacant accommodation around Newcastle Upon Tyne it is not needed. High rise buildings should be limited to the central and higher regions of the city, so as to not block the vintage and heritage buildings that have existed for a long time near to the river. The plans should be adjusted to fall in line with the surroundings. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to this proposal on the following grounds - It is an unnecessary imposition on an area of existing developments which are now impacting detrimentally on a historic area of Newcastle. The area cannot sustain the parking and traffic requirements of such a development. The planned development does not appear to be a sympathetic to the existing mix of historic and redeveloped buildings. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to this proposal on the following grounds - It is an unnecessary imposition on an area of existing developments which are now impacting detrimentally on a historic area of Newcastle. The area cannot sustain the parking and traffic requirements of such a development. The planned development does not appear to be a sympathetic to the existing mix of historic and redeveloped buildings. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| The design of the tall building as planned is out of context with the surrounding Ouseburn. There seems to be insufficient parking provisi9n and public transport facilities are l8mited. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| The design of the tall building as planned is out of context with the surrounding Ouseburn. There seems to be insufficient parking provisi9n and public transport facilities are l8mited. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| This development is wholly inappropriate for the quayside area and does not have sufficient supportive infrastructure. I feel it would completly spoil the nature of this low rise area and be a blot on the landscape, | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I'm contacting Newcastle City Council to object to the Malmo Quay's Development (planning application reference number 2021/2404/01/EIA) on the following issues: - The large size and scale of the development, in particular the 18 storey tower block is inappropriate to the existing topography of the area and existing land use. The inappropriate size is likely to block sunlight and create overshadowing. - The application does not enhance the historic nature of existing buildings in the Ouseburn and Quayside area. This development is highly likely to alter the siteline and enjoyment of local heritage sites such as the Grade II Listed Ouseburn School, the Toffee Factory and Tyne Bar Public House. Furthermore, the colour scheme and materials in the design are not sympathetic to the existing built environment. - There is strong evidence (as supplied by an independent Evnironmental Accoustic's Practice) that the application does not meet national planning or policy guidance in relation to noise and live music from existing businesses within the surrounding Ouseburn area. The developers have not made proper allowance for noise pollution from venues such as the Tyne Bar and surrounding activities in the area. Advising new residents to keep their windows shut is insufficient, and this development risks spoiling the creative atmosphere in their area, putting at risk jobs and livelihoods and ongoing income generation to the city from the existing businesses. - Access to public transportation and resident parking has also not been considered appropriately. This is a large development, and public transport is already limited in this area. This will leave residents reliant on cars for day to day transport needs, which contradicsts Newcastle's declared climate emergency. Furthermore, there is substancial risk of traffic congenstion in the area, as residents parking within the plans is exceedingly limited for the number of homes planned. I am a local resident (living in Heaton), and regularly visit the Ouseburn for both my work as a cultural industiries professional and for leisure activities. I often both walk and cycle in the area with my young children, and the risk of much higher levels of congenstion will these journeys much more dangerous. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| This will block my view | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| Hello - i would like object on a few points please - The Scale and massing of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for it's location. - Quality of design - There's very little merit in a beige 18 story tower block in such a prominent position. Does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. Accessibility - Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away, this is not detailed or considered within the EIA. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| The effect on the Ousburn of this project has no empathy or understanding of what the Ouseburn actually is and how it has evolved over the last forty years, the proposed tower and other buildings architecturally don't sit well in the historical surrounding area ,how infrastructure will cope is puzzling , roads already overburdened parking will cause problems. To conclude this project has nothing that would enrich the residents businesses and buildings that have made the Ouseburn so unique. Regards Robert Lockhart | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| The effect on the Ousburn of this project has no empathy or understanding of what the Ouseburn actually is and how it has evolved over the last forty years, the proposed tower and other buildings architecturally don't sit well in the historical surrounding area ,how infrastructure will cope is puzzling , roads already overburdened parking will cause problems. To conclude this project has nothing that would enrich the residents businesses and buildings that have made the Ouseburn so unique. Regards Robert Lockhart | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| The effect on the Ousburn of this project has no empathy or understanding of what the Ouseburn actually is and how it has evolved over the last forty years, the proposed tower and other buildings architecturally don't sit well in the historical surrounding area ,how infrastructure will cope is puzzling , roads already overburdened parking will cause problems. To conclude this project has nothing that would enrich the residents businesses and buildings that have made the Ouseburn so unique. Regards Robert Lockhart | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| The effect on the Ousburn of this project has no empathy or understanding of what the Ouseburn actually is and how it has evolved over the last forty years, the proposed tower and other buildings architecturally don't sit well in the historical surrounding area ,how infrastructure will cope is puzzling , roads already overburdened parking will cause problems. To conclude this project has nothing that would enrich the residents businesses and buildings that have made the Ouseburn so unique. Regards Robert Lockhart | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I would wish to make a few comments about this proposed development. My overall view is that the plan is all about squeezing the maximum number of properties into the area with scant regard paid to current businesses, residents and visitors. This will bring in much revenue for the council but reduce the joys of living, working and playing in the area and little, or no thought given, to the effect on the area. The area is ‘crying out’ to be developed for community use, perhaps a park to mark the end of the Quayside walk – but The size, shape and general 'feel' of the building is wholly inappropriate for the area. It will not fit with the general nature of the 'industrial' history of the area and will stick out like a very sore thumb. The tower block will cause a loss of light to most of the properties around it and will cast an enormous shadow across the Ouseburn Valley, casting over many new properties, businesses and ‘leisure’ areas. The tower block will overlook many of the properties at St Ann’s Quay leading to a loss of privacy for many. The development will cause enormous difficulties un terms of parking, which is already very tight and not controlled by Council Enforcement Officers. Too many developments are being accepted which do not have sufficient parking for the number of properties. This is cloud ‘cuckoo’ land and will lead to issues – just look at previous developments which have not been thought through… The plan to move the Ouseburn Bridge to single traffic, with the obvious increase in traffic, will cause regular traffic disruption and pose a safety hazard to cyclists and pedestrians, already at risk on this popular walking and cycling route. There is minimal public transport available – most of the amenities; doctors, shops etc are accessed up a steep hill with no transport ]available at all. All in all, the proposed development will just put enormous pressure on the already challenged infrastructure, will reduce the pleasure for those living, and working in the area, and add nothing at all, except some more ‘luxury’ properties which will not be affordable to the vast majority of Newcastle residents. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I would wish to make a few comments about this proposed development. My overall view is that the plan is all about squeezing the maximum number of properties into the area with scant regard paid to current businesses, residents and visitors. This will bring in much revenue for the council but reduce the joys of living, working and playing in the area and little, or no thought given, to the effect on the area. The area is ‘crying out’ to be developed for community use, perhaps a park to mark the end of the Quayside walk – but The size, shape and general 'feel' of the building is wholly inappropriate for the area. It will not fit with the general nature of the 'industrial' history of the area and will stick out like a very sore thumb. The tower block will cause a loss of light to most of the properties around it and will cast an enormous shadow across the Ouseburn Valley, casting over many new properties, businesses and ‘leisure’ areas. The tower block will overlook many of the properties at St Ann’s Quay leading to a loss of privacy for many. The development will cause enormous difficulties un terms of parking, which is already very tight and not controlled by Council Enforcement Officers. Too many developments are being accepted which do not have sufficient parking for the number of properties. This is cloud ‘cuckoo’ land and will lead to issues – just look at previous developments which have not been thought through… The plan to move the Ouseburn Bridge to single traffic, with the obvious increase in traffic, will cause regular traffic disruption and pose a safety hazard to cyclists and pedestrians, already at risk on this popular walking and cycling route. There is minimal public transport available – most of the amenities; doctors, shops etc are accessed up a steep hill with no transport ]available at all. All in all, the proposed development will just put enormous pressure on the already challenged infrastructure, will reduce the pleasure for those living, and working in the area, and add nothing at all, except some more ‘luxury’ properties which will not be affordable to the vast majority of Newcastle residents. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| Very ugly building, it is far too tall! It will ruin the character of the Ouseburn which does not have the infrastructure to deal with this many homes. The building will also block the view from Ouseburn down to Newcastle which is a huge part of its charm and why I often visit. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| Very ugly building, it is far too tall! It will ruin the character of the Ouseburn which does not have the infrastructure to deal with this many homes. The building will also block the view from Ouseburn down to Newcastle which is a huge part of its charm and why I often visit. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| Very ugly building, it is far too tall! It will ruin the character of the Ouseburn which does not have the infrastructure to deal with this many homes. The building will also block the view from Ouseburn down to Newcastle which is a huge part of its charm and why I often visit. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| Objections to Malmo/Spillers Hybrid Application. 1. The hybrid application is a hostage to fortune. Any issues given approval on the detailed Malmo application will perforce not be open, or will be harder to object to on a detailed application for Spillers; eg a. Igloo’s technical data/specifications/readings and information on noise is shown by the attached acoustic report by Sustainable Acoustics to be in error. But if the application is granted these specifications will automatically transfer across to Spillers and be a (flawed) template for future developments. b. openable window are shown on the drawings, yet the acoustic report assumes closed windows, an issue which ought to be resolved with a detailed application on Spillers at the same time as Malmo. 2. There is no justification made in the application for this hybrid/partial approach. It is submitted that it undermines rather than enhances the application and on this basis, the Planning Committee is invited to decide that it would be right to refuse this hybrid application, both as a matter of principle and by virtue of the objections listed below. 3. a. The size, height and density is out of proportion to and dominates the Ouseburn, thrusting a 1960’s tower block look-a-like onto the sky line, facing away from the Ouseburn . On any criteria it is certainly not a ‘world-class’ design. The Ouseburn is designated a ‘destination’ for city visitors. This block does nothing to induce visitors to come to the area. A common reaction would be - what a shame! b. The windows are out of proportion to the building, perhaps because of 4 below. 4. The economics of building on this site have clearly forced the developers to push the height to get enough dwellings to make it economically viable and by doing so have lost in their design a sense of proportion, empathy for the Ouseburn and it conflicts with the scales on Ouseburn P Policy and heritage and conservation guidelines. 5. The site and density of Malmo will create parking/transport problems. Residents will try to avoid parking in the proposed car park on Spillers and then having to walking to Malmo. Access routes to the river and in the area will become congested and are curtailed. 6. With the Ouseburn being designated by the City a ‘Destination’ place for visitors, the destruction of the Cycle Hub directly undermines this designation. The Hub is exactly the sort of building - very interesting even if some don’t like it, - with its businesses and community value which should be preserved. It is an icon of the Ouseburn. It’s destruction contravenes the National Design Code, undermines the Newcastle/Gateshead Initiative, is contrary to heritage and conservation principles, and is not compatible with the code/spirit of Ouseburn Planning Policy. 7. NOISE. a. Fred Plater of the Tyne Bar has disclosed Sustainable Acoustics’ significant critique of the acoustic report written by Igloo’s agents for this application, Cundalls. b. I object to the granting of this application on the ground that the findings in Cundall’s report will have direct consequences for the businesses of the Cumberland Arms, the Tyne Bar and other noise generating venues in that the noise assessments and the calculations on which its conclusions are based, lower the required standard of acoustic design and are in error. This will lead to justifiable complaints of noise nuisance by residents of the proposal on Malmo and for residents of Spillers and for residents on other proposed sites in the Ouseburn. Please see my para 7. d where this point is developed. c. See below a copy of Sustainable Acoustic’s critique of Cundall’s report (para 9), but to assist, summary - (with Sustainable Acoustic’s paragraphs in bold; Cundalls paragraphs in italics) as follows:- 2.1.1 / EIA section 5. The wrong edition of the NPPF is used. 3.i) / e.g. MQ-WAB-01-08-DR-A-01015 TOWER 08 PLAN) note “Refer to elevations to see openable / fixed windows.” All windows are designed to be openable leading to complaints about noise. 3.ii and iii / 2.3.4. NR 29 is incompatible with avoiding noise nuisance required by para 187 NPPF. 3.iv / 3.6.2. Cundall’s report state that internal noise level of less than 29 will result in neglibale/minor noise intrusion. Sustainable Acoustics report, “This is entirely wrong in my professional view, and misleading to rely on for music noise, which is far more disturbing due to the recognisable aspects that have beat and rhythm.” 3.vi / para4.2. Cundalls’ data referred to here is incomplete “and as such unreliable.” 3.vii / 5.2. Sustainable Acoustics opine that internal levels of noise will be much higher than suggested by Cundalls. 3.viii / 6.2.1. Noise break-in calculations are not shown in Appendix N&V Technical. 3.ix / 6.2.1.1 “…unacceptable restrictions could be expected to result” even on Cundall’s own calculations. Points out contradiction between readings/openable(on drawings)/closed (for readings) windows. 3.x / 6.2.1.1 It is not correct that the Tyne Bar only has 8 outside events a year. It is restricted by a tenancy agreement to 8 outside evening events. It is not restricted by law from having events every day of the year, provided the tenancy agreement is honoured so far as evening events are concerned. I believe in a normal year the Tyne holds:- - From April to September they hold outside music events every Sunday afternoon = 24 events. -They hold 3 Main Festivals a year, Eye of Tyne, Narc Fest and EvoEmergen in the afternoon. = 6 events -Private parties with outside afternoon events can be up to 4 a month June to September = 16 events. 3.xi / 6.2.1.1 windows/open/closed/overheating/noise. “…acoustic protection would be compromised and 3.xii. “This last point is a major issue that presents a serious flaw to the technical application” Sustainable Acoustics conclusions are at their para 4. d. If permission is granted on the technical information on noise put forward by Igloo to support their application, there will/may be significant consequences: i. the suggested technical errors and application of the wrong criteria etc which Sustainable Acoustics identify in their full report, could be incorporated in Spillers detailed application and so ii. when a detailed application for Spillers is submitted it will be difficult, possibly impossible, for the City to refuse Spillers detailed app on the basis of suggested flawed opinion and iii. Other development sites may also quote the ‘passed’ suggested flawed Igloo report/grant of pp on Malmo. iv. If permission were granted on Igloo’s report as it stands, any subsequent legally justifiable complaint about noise would leave a thorny and possibly expensive knot to be unravelled. 8. A way forward: Noise proposal for the Ouseburn Valley. a. Sustainable Acoustics have suggested beyond their attached report (while writing a report for the Cumberland Arms in relation to Foundry Lane and Grieves Yard developments) that a ‘Soundscape’ be made of the Ouseburn, ie an inventory of all establishments which emanate noise, on which Peter Rogers of that firm is an expert. b. This would establish a base line for the production of noise in the Valley, giving the City greater confidence on deciding which sites are and are not (and are questionable as to being) suitable for housing, c. give greater clarity of the sound issues for developers and residents to work from. d. The noise assessments would hopefully be made in conjunction with EH, Apex and any other acoustician interested and especially owners of businesses and residents of the Valley, realising a definitive, agreed (including agreed disagreements) for a noise base-line. 9. Sustainable Acoustics critique the report prepared by the developer’s agents for this application. v ACOUSTICS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM To: NCC Planning Date: 15 February 2022 CC: NCC Environmental Services, Mr Platter (The Tyne Bar) From: Peter Rogers, Acoustics Expert Ref: 22-0028-0 Tyne Bar NPPF para 187 objection.docx SUBJECT: TECHNICAL OBJECTION ON NOISE TO APPLICATION 2021/2404/01/EIA – MALMO QUAY INTRODUCTION I have been appointed by Mr Platter of The Tyne Bar, to independently review the merits of the application for land known as Malmo Quay, as part of 2021/2404/01/EIA. I am an independent expert in acoustics with over 25 years experience, a Fellow of the Institute of Acoustics, a Chartered Engineer and I’ve spent 5 years in enforcement in Local Authority as an authorised officer. I am familiar with the Ouseburn Valley and its role as a cultural quarter for the city of Newcastle upon Tyne. The Tyne Bar is a major source entertainment noise in the area, operating as part of its night life. It is located close to the north west corner of the proposed site, and is a long-established business in the Ouseburn. The Tyne Bar plays high level of music noise and is a valued part of the night-time economy, and as such has a right to operate without unreasonable restrictions, according to National Planning Policy under paragraph 187 of the NPPF. The proposals have been reviewed against this right, which applies the “agent of change” principle. In this case the applicants are under the responsibility that their application properly considers this to avoid restricting and causing harm to the Tyne Bar’s business and the character of the area. It also is important that future residents are not placed in unsuitable living conditions. This representation sets out the objection on technical grounds to the proposals set out within section 5 of Volume II of the Environmental Statement, and its supporting Appendices. Managing Director: Peter Rogers BSc MSc CEng FIOA FRSA MIOL Registered in England Company No.: 08149321 VAT Registration No.: 180557205 1The Tyne Bar Memo Ref. 22-0028-0 Tyne Bar - objection to Malmo Quay application on Noise Grounds - P Rogers.docx 2. PLANNING & NOISE – REGULATIONS & POLICY 2.1 National Planning Policy Framework 2.1.1 Current planning policy is based on the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), revised in February 2019, and most recently in 2021. It is noted that although prepared in December 2021 the EIA Section 5 refers to a superseded version. This means the references to paragraphs are not correct. Policy supports a presumption in favour of sustainable development, unless the adverse impacts of that development would outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework, taken as a whole. 2.1.2 Para. 174 of the National Planning Policy Framework at e) that planning decisions should contribute to and enhance the local environment by: “preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability...” 2.1.3 The noise implications of development are recognised at para. 185, where it is stated that planning policies and decisions should: • “mitigate and reduce to a minimum potential adverse impact from noise from new development – and avoid noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and the quality of life” 2.1.4 The Government’s objective is to significantly boost the supply of homes, but puts in place protections for existing business in paragraph 187: “Planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development can be “integrated effectively with existing business and community facilities (such as places of worship, pubs, music venues and sports clubs)”. Existing businesses should not have “unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established”. Where the operation of an existing business or community facility could have a significant adverse effect on new development (including changes of use) in its vicinity, the applicant (or ‘agent of change’) should be required to provide suitable mitigation before the development has been completed.” Managing Director: Peter Rogers BSc MSc CEng FIOA MIOL FRSA Registered in England Company No.: 08149321 VAT Registration No.: 180557205 2 Memo Ref. 22-0028-0 Tyne Bar - objection to Malmo Quay application on Noise Grounds - P Rogers.docx TECHNICAL REVIEW The basis of this technical review is to test the robustness of the application proposals on noise and vibration in Volume II, Section 5 of the ES as in considering the existing business of the Tyne Bar, and whether it would be unreasonably restricted. Having reviewed the submitted drawings, the Environmental Statement Noise Chapter and associated Technical Appendix I have the following comments: i) The layout drawings (e.g. MQ-WAB-01-08-DR-A-01015 TOWER 08 PLAN) note “Refer to elevations to see openable / fixed windows”. The elevation drawings show openable windows on all facades. The implications of this are that residents would be disturbed by noise at might as they open windows for ventilation and cooling. Consequently, the Tyne Bar would be likely to suffer unreasonable restrictions as a result. ii) ES Chapter 5 Noise and Vibration, Para. 2.3.4 suggests NCC agreement to NR 29 as a criteria within dwellings from music noise from the Tyne Bar. This is incompatible with avoiding significant adverse impact, as required by para 187 of the NPPF. iii)This is also not typical for NCC for new residential development affected by existing entertainment noise, e.g. for the proposed Aparthotel to the north of the Tyne Bar (NCC planning reference: 2018/0515/DET) the internal noise level requirement was NR 25 for temporary residents. It is my own experience and opinion that a much more stringent criteria would be needed to safeguard residents from the intrusion from bass, and provide suitable living conditions. It is difficult to justify clearly audible levels within apartments as such, and in my opinion they would not be. iv) Para. 3.6.2 states that a level of music noise within dwellings less than NR29 will result in Negligible / minor negative, but where greater than NR 29 would be considered Moderate / Major Negative impacts. This is entirely wrong in my professional view, and misleading to rely on for music noise, which is far more disturbing due to the recognisable aspects that have beat and rhythm. Humans have evolved to pay attention to such sounds, and so the same broadband sound at the same level would not as disturbing as music noise, meaning much more stringent criteria must be considered. Clearly the applicant has not understood this. v) This criteria is not what has typically been acceptable for other residential developments affected by entertainment noise by NCC, and it would not adequately protect the residents or the business of the Tyne Bar from unreasonable restriction. Managing Director: Peter Rogers BSc MSc CEng FIOA MIOL FRSA Registered in England Company No.: 08149321 VAT Registration No.: 180557205 3 Memo Ref. 22-0028-0 Tyne Bar - objection to Malmo Quay application on Noise Grounds - P Rogers.docx vi) Para. 4.2 states that noise level measurements were taken in various locations, but only gives the measured noise levels at a single position close to the outdoor stage. It is not clear why the noise levels measured at or closer to the development sites not included so that the actual noise levels from music, rather than the calculated / modelled noise levels can be critically reviewed. The data is therefore incomplete and as such unreliable. vii) Para. 5.2 suggests that music noise levels of over 70 dB(A) incident on proposed dwellings. This is substantial and maximums would likely to be up to 10dB higher in my experience. If a window was opened under these conditions internal levels could be expected to be approximately 55 - 60dB(A), which would approximate to NR50 to NR55, with maximums around 65 - 70dB(A). WHO guidance and ProPG suggest that not more than maximums of 45dB inside a bedrooms, which would be 20-25dB(A) below the noise levels. These noise levels would present and very disruption unacceptable adverse impacts for residents that ought to be prevented, according to the guidance to the hierarchy table in the NPPF (NPPG Noise). This would be a Major Negative impact according to Para. 3.6.2. viii) Para 6.2.1 states that details of the noise break-in calculations are shown in the N&V Technical Appendix. No such calculations are shown in the Appendix. The Appendix does show sample internal noise levels for a few spaces from noise sources other than external music events at the Tyne Bar. ix) Para. 6.2.1.1 states that the NR29 criteria are to be exceeded in the worst affected townhouses, so even according to its own analysis (assuming the criteria to be robust) an unacceptable restriction could be expected to result, with risk of complaints to the Tyne Bar. Music noise levels of NR38 / 41 dB(A) and NR45 / 49 dB(A) are calculated internally within the example dwelling. It is assumed that this is with closed windows – but the elevations to townhouses show opening windows. This is a Moderate / Major Negative impact according to Para. 3.6.2 - see above, and must be prevented according to the NPPG Noise. x) Para. 6.2.1.1 states that there are only 8 outdoor events per year. The Tyne bar is a busy music venues and is lawfully unrestricted in its operations, and to expect it to be restricted in this way would be unreasonable and contra to para 187 of the NPPF. xi) Para. 6.2.3.1 states that open windows are not required to control overheating. Internal noise levels are met with windows closed, but cannot be with windows open – elevations show windows can be opened, bypassing the protection provided and meaning acoustic protection would be Managing Director: Peter Rogers BSc MSc CEng FIOA MIOL FRSA Registered in England Company No.: 08149321 VAT Registration No.: 180557205 4 Memo Ref. 22-0028-0 Tyne Bar - objection to Malmo Quay application on Noise Grounds - P Rogers.docx compromised. There would be nothing stopping a resident from then complaining on grounds that it would be reasonable to open the window for fresh air. xii) This last point is a major issue, that presents a serious flaw to the technical application. All the calculations of facade sound insulation to achieve NR29 from external music events at the Tyne Bar assume closed windows, but the design of the buildings clearly show that there are openable windows to all rooms. It is not possible therefore to achieve the criteria as shown. Where there is a Moderate / Major Negative impact, there is a high risk of noise complaints resulting in a statutory nuisance, which could result in a noise abatement notice being served on the Tyne Bar. 4 CONCLUSIONS I have independently technically reviewed this application, which in terms of noise in substance with restricted to Volume II, Section 5 of the ES. I have offered my expert opinion in relation to it robustness, using over 30 years’ experience within the field and as a Fellow of the institute of Acoustics. My duty is to the Planning Committee or official considering this matter. I conclude the technical basis of this application on noise grounds are seriously flawed. I have identified a number of ways the approach and assessment requires a re-think, with the main points being as follows: 1. The Tyne Bar is a major entertainment source that generates music and people noise late into the night. It is a long established business which does not currently suffer restrictions on its music levels or number of events that align with those assumed by the applicants. A robust operational baseline has not been established for the Tyne Bar, with tests during Covid lockdowns a poor substitute for monitoring of real events to determine typical maximum levels to inform the assessment. As a result the assessment has not robustly assessed the noise from the Tyne Bar or the levels of mitigaiton needed to avoid unreasonable restrictions upon its operations, as it must according to para 187 of the NPPF. 2 Windows of the development have been assumed to be closed for the acoustic assessment, but are clearly shown as openable in the drawings. This would result an unacceptable adverse impact that should be prevented, according to the NPPG Noise. 3 The criteria applied is incorrect, and would not provide suitable living conditions for residents, with music noise likely to cause a significant adverse impact in my expert opinion. Managing Director: Peter Rogers BSc MSc CEng FIOA MIOL FRSA Registered in England Company No.: 08149321 VAT Registration No.: 180557205 5 Memo Ref. 22-0028-0 Tyne Bar - objection to Malmo Quay application on Noise Grounds - P Rogers.docx It is also my view this is unlikely this would also reflect NCC’s acceptable criteria, in light of other similar projects in the area. Calculated music noise levels are some 9 to 20dB above the applicants own criteria (which is already considered to be unacceptable) in some of the town houses and a would fail to provide acceptable living conditions under para 185 of the NPPF. The proposal would not satisfy paragraph 174 of the NPPF as it would not prevent this new development from contributing to noise pollution, and nor would it sufficiently protect the existing business of the Tyne Bar from being put at unacceptable risk of complaints relating to the noise it generates lawfully at present, and restrictions as a result of action under statutory nuisance. This would be likely to cause harm to the business of the Tyne Bar and also the character of the area as a result. This is also entirely contrary to para 187 of the NPPF, as the applicant should be applying the Agent of Change principle and has not done adequately. Suitable mitigaiton has not been proposed in my opinion. The development has a sewage pumping station in the middle of it, which in my experience can be a serious source of low frequency noise, which has not been properly assessed by Cundall. Low frequency noise problems are notoriously difficult to deal with, and could affect many people. As Northumbrian Water are a statutory authority, they can attend at any time of day or night, and whatever noise they make cannot be classed as a statutory nuisance. I don't think this is a typical arrangement with residential accommodation so close, and should be avoided where possible because of this unexplored risk. In conclusion it is my strong recommendation and expert opinion that this application should be refused. This is because it does not meet the technical requirements expected of it to meet national planning policy or guidance, and that the likely impact on residents and the future of the Tyne Bar mean this should be prevented by rejecting the application outright. It would not be appropriate or feasible at this time, in my view, to approve with conditions as the impacts and restrictions on the nearby Tyne Bar have not been properly considered. As the Agent of Change it is the obligation on the applicant to do so. Peter Rogers , Fellow of the IOA and Registered Expert Witness. Managing Director: Peter Rogers BSc MSc CEng FIOA MIOL FRSA Registered in England Company No.: 08149321 VAT Registration No.: 180557205 | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| Objection to Malmo and Spillars Quay Development - 2021/2404/01/EIA: • This development is not remotely in keeping with the surrounding area. Not in terms of scale, style or function. • It would greatly increase the amount of traffic in Ouseburn and the surrounding area. This will increase both noise and air pollution as well as reduced safety of pedestrians. • If approved, increased traffic is inevitable as the area is not well served by the city's metro system. The nearest stations are roughly a mile away and all pedestrian routes to those stations are also uphill. • There are no plans for sufficient parking to accommodate the increased number of cars the development will bring to the area. On-street parking is already limited and struggles to meet the needs of existing residents. • With the inevitable increase in traffic, loss of open space, a densely populated residential area, would significantly reduce the safety of those accessing the Hadrian’s Way route. This would in turn reduce the number of visitors to the area, having an adverse impact on local businesses. • The councils ‘Net Zero Newcastle - 2030 Action Plan’ lays out plans to increase ‘active travel’ and reduce traffic in Newcastle. This proposal, which will impact the accessibility of a major national cycle route and involve the demolition of the Cycle Hub, a well established community resource that encourages and enables cycling throughout the city, would only set back these plans. • The Ouseburn area currently provides a unique cultural and economic benefit to the city. If approved, this proposal will greatly threaten the existing culture and value of the area while detrimentally affecting existing residents and visitors. • The Ouseburn area is home to many small businesses and listed buildings. The area is currently populated by older, often repurposed buildings that are generally no more than two stories tall. These buildings maintain a strong link to the area’s industrial past and do not consist of densely packed, new-build, residential properties. • The proposed plan, consisting of a densely populated area of private dwellings and a large multi-story tower block, all built in a modern style at odds with existing nearby buildings, would drastically alter the topography and culture of the area and threaten the viability of many existing businesses. • Local businesses, such as mechanics, engineering firms, venues and arts studios, thrive precisely because the area is not densely populated with residential properties. These businesses provide the unique environment that makes the area so valuable and they would struggle to find a home elsewhere in the city. • The area currently provides a safe, open space, popular with pedestrians that frequent the local businesses and access the Newcastle quayside. There is currently little traffic, making it one of the few areas in this part of Newcastle away from busy roads and with limited noise and air pollution. • With Newcastle City Council investing in cycle routes throughout other areas of the city, and implementing measures to reduce the amount of traffic in and around the city, it would seem that this proposal is at odds with the council's current planning policies and their commitment to a greener, safer, more environmentally responsible city. • The area of the proposed development is currently an integral part of the Hadrian’s Way path/cycle route, an official National Trail administered by Natural England. The route is one of the most popular in England, both with cyclists and pedestrians. Hadrian’s Way forms part of the coast-to-coast route, bringing a large number of visitors to the area throughout the year. Many local businesses are built around this, offering amenities and services aimed at cyclists and hikers. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I believe this proposal conflicts with the following policies in the Newcastle Core Strategy: Policy Q01: section 6 of the policy states that "Sustaining and enhancing the character of the area through the reuse of vacant historic buildings and by respecting the scale, plot sizes, topography and historic grain of the area." The size and character of the proposal is out of keeping with the appearance and character of the area and will fundementally change the apperance of this location. I believe would have a serious determental impact on the adjacent Lower Ouseburn Valley Conservation Area. Policy CS15 Place-Making: This policy requires developments to "respond positively to local distinctiveness and character", "respect and enhance significant views and the setting of heritage assets", "respond to the unique character and importance of the River Tyne, its tributaries and its setting", and "respond to local design and conservation guidance". I believe that the size, design, visual intrusiveness and location of this proposal are contrary to this policy. I note that paragraph 12.16 of the Core Strategy states that "Successful place-making requires an understanding and respect for an area’s unique built, natural, cultural and socio-economic context." I do not believe that this proposal takes into account the setting in which it would sit. I also note that Policy UC15 Urban Green Infrastructure requires development in the lower Ouseburn to "protect and enhance the Urban Green Infrastructure Network, address gaps and improve linkages to the Strategic Green Infrastructure Network." There does not appear to be any significant green infrastructure enhancement associated with this proposal. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I wish to object to the this application for the following reasons: 1. Inappropriate Scale: The ‘Malmo’ section of the proposed development is not in any way sympathetic with the surrounding industrial heritage or vibrant cultural hub. The tower would dominate the skyline and kerbside of this part of the city, which is known and celebrated for its historic buildings, bridges and open views over the river. 2. Traffic / Transportation / Parking: The proposed development is located on a national cycle route (#72) that is also a well-used commuting route for local cyclists and pedestrians. Not only will the proposed development be likely to result in significantly more cars using this route but there would also likely be a dramatic increase in on-street parking (if unofficially). These factors would make the route much less safe and appealing to cyclists and pedestrians who use it. It is also worth noting that the local public transportation links to and from the development are roughly 1km away and include a steep walk up hill, so are unlikely to be appealing to many residents and is more likely to result in car ownership. 3. Daylight / Overshadowing: There would be a huge impact on nearby residences and businesses that would be overshadowed by the proposed development. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| The city is desperately in need of more affordable housing, this tower block does not provide what is needed. 18 car parking spaces for 62 apartments is unmanageable, and the increased traffic will likely deter cyclists from the area - a sustainable and environmentally friendly travel option that the council should be encouraging. Additionally there is minimal public transport to the area, which again encourages driving (unclean, unsustainable) by the future residents. The size of the tower block is not in keeping with the surrounding area, not aesthetically appealing and ruinous to an existing cultural and historic landmark. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to this monstrosity. There is no need to ruin the quayside and its view. It is not a stylish, modern building, nor does it benefit the community in any way shape or form. This project will only increase noise, litter and parking issues. There has been little thought for the people of Newcastle and the small communities surrounding this god awful project. It will negatively impact local businesses, neighbours, the litter going into and around the river, pollution and parking. We at La Verne Vintage stand with the free trade inn and any other small businesses around us that this will negatively impact. We object. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to this monstrosity. There is no need to ruin the quayside and its view. It is not a stylish, modern building, nor does it benefit the community in any way shape or form. This project will only increase noise, litter and parking issues. There has been little thought for the people of Newcastle and the small communities surrounding this god awful project. It will negatively impact local businesses, neighbours, the litter going into and around the river, pollution and parking. We at La Verne Vintage stand with the free trade inn and any other small businesses around us that this will negatively impact. We object. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I would like to object to Application 2021/2404/01/EIA (the 'Malmo Quay' development). I am a resident of Newcastle who frequently visits Newcastle Quayside and Ouseburn, the following are my concerns: 1. The design and appearance of the building are differ hugely from the existing developments along the Quayside. An 18-storey structure will ruin the asthetic of an attractive part of the city, famous for its Sunday market and the rich culture that The Baltic, Sage Gateshead and the recent development of Hillgate Quays have bought to the area. It is wildly out of place and the structure itself will impede a view that has become a staple of Newcastle. The scale of the buliding means it will cast shadow on significant areas along the quayside, affecting businesses and other residences. 2. The plans submitted do not allow for adquate parking for the number of residents that would occupy the development. This is already an an area that already has limited public transportation links and parking facilities. This is sure to affect the residences and businesses in the area, along with those who visit the quayside market on Sundays. 3. The design of the building is out of keeping with the history of the local environment of the Ouseburn. Recent developments have been designed to blend in with the industrial history of the Ouseburn area, which shows that successful development is possible. This is a huge, beige tower block which seems completely at odds with the rest of the development of the area that has already been completed. Overall, were this proposal to be developed as described and modelled, it would be an eyesore in one of the loveliest parts of Newcastle. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I have visited Newcastle on many occasions and every time I’ve been to the bike hub I’ve received a warm Geordie welcome. This proposed development means the loss of this important community hub, being replaced with a development absolutely out of keeping with the local area. Please reconsider these plans. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to the application because the tower block imposes a blot on the cityscape when viewed from the north and west, views which are notably missing from the images presented with the application. Views from these directions are at least as important as those from over the water - if not more so - as public observation is more likely from these directions. The imposition of this block - particularly against the sky - detracts from the current appearance of the structures in the Ouseburn area, which are largely complimentary to each other. Its approval and construction would be an undesirable precedent leading to further unsympathetic developments in this area in future. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| Dear planning team, I am writing in regards to planning application reference 2021/2404/01/EIA. There are several questions I believe this proposal raises: Has the developer Igloo made proper allowance for noise pollution from Tyne Bar and surrounding Ouseburn activities? • Surely, asking the new residents to keep their windows closed isn't good enough. Does the proposal respect or enhance the historic character of Quayside and Ouseburn? The Quayside and Ouseburn’s built environment is distinctive; many buildings are historic, of different sizes and orientations. o For one example, take the Sailors’ Bethel which will overlook this proposed development, painted by Lowry, the original of which hangs in the Laing gallery. o Other listed buildings and heritage assets in the area include Grade II Listed Ouseburn School, Tyne Bar Public House, the Toffee Factory and the Glasshouse Bridge – will the new building alter the site-line or enjoyment of these local heritage sites? o Would you accept that the colour scheme and materials used are sympathetic to the existing built environment, including the industrial heritage of the Ouseburn and Quayside? A building of this size will surely have a huge impact in terms of blocking sunlight and casting a shadow including significant impact on existing businesses, including Free Trade Inn and Tyne Bar, but also residential properties – having lived on Quayside this is especially important to me. Having lived on Quayside, I have first-hand experience of being both a pedestrian, driver and user of public transport in the area o I am not convinced that consideration has been given to the impact of the development and the associated vehicles on the existing highways infrastructure, and the provision of parking for the development. o What impact might the application have on neighbouring developments, and the highways infrastructure? § Public transport links are limited with no buses currently passing the site. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. This is a tough ask on a windy day – I know, I’ve done it. § Parking; the submitted plans appear to only show 18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments. • This is guaranteed to put pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route 72 which runs along the Quayside. I imagine that the parking spaces on Tyne Street behind High Quays will be pinched by residents, and I can imagine Crawhall Road and Walker Road coming under greater pressure, too. • Using the already busy Spiller’s Wharf car park for overspill isn’t a sensible solution, given the development being planned there over the next 3-4 years – and when it’s finished the parking there will be for users & residents of that development. Thank you for taking my objections into consideration. Kind regards, Philip Duncan Abbot | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| Having read through all the submitted documents I have a number of concerns, mainly regarding the tower, but also touching on the proposed layout of the Malmo site and the inclusion of the Spillers site as relevant to certain proposed elements on the Malmo site. The applicant’s inclusion of the Spillers site is stated to enable principles to be set in outline at this stage in order to control future applications and set standards. However, the arguments for application for the Malmo site leans heavily on precedents set by historical uses and built forms on the Spillers site, flipping the stated reasoning round. The Malmo site should be reasoned for in and of itself. I would particularly note references in the Heritage Statements regarding the scale of the now demolished Spillers Wharf building being used as justification for a large building on the Malmo site. The Spillers Wharf building, whilst large, was at the far end of the site, away from the entrance to the Ouseburn. I believe its scale was used as justification for the Ferris Wheel at that far end of the Quayside and is not a valid argument for increasing heights around the Ouseburn mouth. In fact the documents discussing scale and historical layouts note that the built environment reduces distinctly in scale as you progress east with a low, open aspect as the Ouseburn meets the Tyne- in itself a visual signal to encourage exploration. The proposed tower would bring a full stop to the vistas both from the main Quayside/ bridges area and from up the Ouseburn valley, particularly closing in the valley rather than drawing movement out towards the Tyne. There have clearly been many and long ongoing discussions on the need for and suitability of a tower on the site and it would seem that by this stage a tower is a foregone conclusion. The form and location of the tower does not seem to meet the criteria set out and described within the application’s own documents. It is a good design aesthetically as a stand-alone building, but it does not reference anything of its context which it claims to do. The views along the Quayside that show the site in context reveal a dense, layered townscape, with significant buildings contributing to and being supported by the rich variety of other buildings. There are not gaps isolating structures from those around them on the North side of the river. You could argue that the south side is more a series of statement buildings, but its heritage is very different to the Newcastle side. The new tower stands alone and isolated, not adding to or gaining from the layering, but calling attention to itself. There could perhaps be a benefit in this if it was a destination, but it is housing and clearly so. It is not publicly accessible and has no draw for pedestrians along the Quayside and yet it will become the primary central focal point of views east along the river, including those of the iconic bridges. If it were consciously design to be this focal point then it would need to be something iconic in its own right, but it appears as an accident. The design of the tower does not meet its own criteria either. Whilst good, robust materials are proposed for it and the other buildings on the site, there is no reference to either the many sandstone buildings or the deep red bricks around. It is very much of its time which is good- pastiche is rarely appropriate in historically important settings, but the scale of the façade detailing does not even nod to that around it. Looking at the context photographs again, you can see how granular the elevations of the townscape are. The buildings are often grand and from a variety of eras, but they have human sized detailing, with openings and features that change in scale and relate to the streetscape and the sky differently. The proposed block, and the lower town house/ apartments too, take one statement look and multiply it. The openings are large on the facades and largely uniform so that the scale of the building appears different to the surrounding buildings. The layout of the site does not connect the Ouseburn with the Quayside. The blocks are all individual and marooned on the site with desire lines ignored. The “public space” is a euphemism for a service court that has had to be retained and the urban design of the site does nothing to draw movement towards the Ouseburn. Much has been said by many other commenters about the impact of the tower on much-loved views, the apparent lack of need of more small Quayside apartments, the issues with parking and transport links and the questionable need to move the well-established Bike Hub, the majority of which I would echo. I am equally aware that this site has been empty for too long. I hope though that my observations here will be useful in highlighting issues that make this proposal the wrong one for Newcastle and for the Ouseburn in particular and I write as a concerned local (Heaton) resident who has professional experience in both conservation and people-focused design. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| The proposed development is a violation on the community of Ouseburn and the surrounding areas. Ouseburn is a welcoming, friendly and rich diverse community with a variety of independent pubs, restaurants shop, studios etc. This development will ruin the view for landmark pubs such as the Tyne Bar and the Freetrade inn, push up rents and prices for locals and commercialise what is a glorious individual area. Ouseburn is unique to Newcastle and attracts people from all over the north to sample our local breweries and eateries. The scenery of Ouseburn is unique and famous, the proposed development would ruin all that is special and unique about the area for no other reason than financial gain. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I am writing to object to the Malmo Quay development as detailed in planning application 2021/2404/01/EIA. The scale is wholly inappropriate for the surrounding area. The design itself is visually unpleasant and not in keeping with a heritage area. Other developments in the Ouseburn have used brick and other materials more sensitive to the original environment, why allow this exception after so much good work? If even the people building student flats have managed this, why not in this case? If it's because of the size of this project, it seems self-evident that it is inappropriate. If it cannot be built to similar aesthetic standands and quality to other Ouseburn builds it seems self evident that it is out of place. Please do not do this. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I'd like to object to the building as I believe it will ruin the area from both near and from a distance. The implications of the venues around the area are evident based on the Environmental Acoustics Practice review (taken out by The Tyne Bar). I'm also opposed to the design of the building as it protrudes too far up and looks too out of place to be built so far along the Quayside; it simply doesn't fit the area and seems to be being built for the sake of selling more flats in the area. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I would like to submit a strong objection to this tower block, it is not at all in keeping with the Ouseburn and it’s history. As well as the building being out of place it offers minimal parking and transport links. The parking around the Ouseburn is already in dire straits and this would only have a hugely negative impact on the area. This tower will not bring any good to the area and will only drag the quality of life down. Leave Ouseburn alone | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I don't feel the proposed development is in-keeping with the current landscape of such a historic area. This will harm the character of the local area, and change beyond repair the marvellous viewpoints that make the Ouseburn what it is. A huge tower block will stick out like a sore thumb and become an eyesore, rather than a landmark. Public transport already struggles to service the area and this development will only make things worse, that's before you consider the lack of parking in the surrounding area. The potential negative impact on the national cycle route that runs along the quayside is another reason I feel this development should not go ahead, especially at a time when we should be encouraging the public to get into cycling as a means of green travel. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| As a lifelong Newcastle resident, I fail to see how this scheme would not be hugely damaging to the both the Quayside and Ouseburn areas. The tower block, especially, would be disproprtionately high in comparison to the other buildings at that end of the Quayside, appears to be a severe eyesore, and will be out of keeping with the adjacent Ouseburn area. The long-established pubs in teh vicinity will of course be compromised by the new buildings, and the area as it's long been known will no longer be the same. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| While I do not currently live in the Newcastle area and so understand that my opinion will not be weighted as highly as someone who does, I did live in Newcastle for 6 years for university studying Architecture and developed a strong affinity with the city. The following points summarise my thoughts on the strengths of this project and the objections I have to it, with a more in depth explanation of these opinions afterwards along with accompanying imagery submitted. Positives: -Having used this space extensively over the years as a throughway between the quayside and the Ouseburn area I agree with the idea that this space needs to be developed. It has been an underused carpark and wasteland for a large amount of time and has the potential to be a fantastic connection between the two adjacent areas of the city. -The ‘townhouses’ are in keeping with the scale and character of the wider Ouseburn area and the materiality is suitable and in keeping with local context. -A public space in this area would be a great amenity for passers by and locals in the area. Objections: -The scale of the tower is not at all in keeping with the local context and character of the area -The massing of the tower is too prominent in the skyline and competes and/or distracts from Newcastle’s distinct and historic landmarks. -Key views around the quayside and Ouseburn would be impeded or dominated by the tower -The landscaping is disjointed with the route through increasing in length compared to the current public throughway and unclear wayfinding with the proposed massing blocking off clear views through. More detailed reasoning: The massing and height of the proposal (in particular the tower) is compared in the D&A documents repeatedly to far off buildings at the top of the hill/valley rather than immediate context in order to try and justify a taller building than is suitable for this quayside site. Fig.1 in the accompanying image document shows a diagram used in the D&A to show how the building height has been considered in the context of the city’s horizon skyline. However this view is from the top of the hill and so distorts how the building feels in terms of the horizon skyline from various other more appropriate viewpoints. Figs.2-4 shows how this conceptual approach to massing has not been considered in the other imagery as the tower clearly and distinctly breaks the horizon line in all views. The ‘townhouses’ however do fit within this concept and are in keeping with the local context. Similarly a series of elevation diagrams have also been used to compare datums on the building to far off landmarks rather than the local context in order to use the height of the hill in the distance to justify a taller building that clearly isn’t suitable to this site (Shown in Figs.9-11). The landmarks that are highlighted around the city in the various documents are dwarfed by the tower rather than respond to it, as shown in Fig.11 where the toffee factory chimney is nominally indicated by a datum in the materiality of the building, but the tower continues far beyond the height of this landmark and detracts from its view. This also brings into question why a newbuild residential building should be a landmark in Newcastle’s skyline to be compared with Historic, Industrial and Engineered landmarks shown in the documents for comparison such as the Baltic and bridges over the Tyne. Other cities have accepted development such as this in the past but after a time have started to reverse this action through new policy. London had significant development but many central London boroughs have started to set maximum height limits at around 6 storeys after experiencing the pitfalls of oversized development. Similarly Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds have all developed en-masse and now have non-distinct skylines and landmarks. For me Newcastle has a clear identity exemplified in the unique planning policy that went into the development of the Ouseburn that large scale towers do not fit into. Views across the city where these views can be seen are also dominated by the tower in the skyline, such as the view from the quayside towards the Ouseburn where the Byker Wall no longer features as the prominent silhouette (Fig.3). Or the view from the Free Trade Inn, voted the best beer garden view in the UK by the Guardian in 2019 for its view, which will be dominated by the proposal (Fig.2). This particular view has been given a diagram in the massing D&A to show its consideration. However this diagram is clearly incorrect, views cannot bounce of walls. Fig.6 shows how this diagram actually works using basic logic, with Figs.7+8 showing how this view is impacted. This same view shows how the proposal would be seen coming down the Ouseburn (a Green link in the Newcastle plan) towards the Quayside and along the primary pedestrian route along the quayside (noted in the Newcastle plan). Currently this view is unobstructed and so allows pedestrians to find their way between the two locations. The proposal, however, blocks this view through making wayfinding much harder, and disguising the public amenity of the proposal from view, potentially making it feel more private or uncomfortable to move through. This may be especially felt with the massive overlooking from the tower above the space. I believe a better approach would be to maintain this direct view through to allow the landscaping to become both a clear and improved pedestrian route and a view corridor for inhabitants of the Ouseburn and the quayside looking east. Summary: A lower scale proposal that is in keeping with similar precedents in the area such as the Mailings would be a more suitable approach, continuing the ideas of design for the townhouses and development on Spiller Wharf, rather than a large-scale tower. The landscaping should be oriented for clear vision and wayfinding between the Quayside and Ouseburn and maintain contentious views. I feel the massing and particularly the height of the tower is far too large and feel something lower that 6 storeys would be more suited the local context on Malmo Quay. The development on Spillers Wharf doesn’t bother me as long as it’s amenity such as car parking isn’t being used to justify overdevelopment on Malmo Quay as a combined scheme. The amount of work put into this project is incredible, with a huge number of diagrams to explain the design decisions, however I feel that this in itself supports my objection as if it was a suitable scheme it would not need so much convincing. | 17/02/2022 | |
| While I do not currently live in the Newcastle area and so understand that my opinion will not be weighted as highly as someone who does, I did live in Newcastle for 6 years for university studying Architecture and developed a strong affinity with the city. The following points summarise my thoughts on the strengths of this project and the objections I have to it, with a more in depth explanation of these opinions afterwards along with accompanying imagery submitted. Positives: -Having used this space extensively over the years as a throughway between the quayside and the Ouseburn area I agree with the idea that this space needs to be developed. It has been an underused carpark and wasteland for a large amount of time and has the potential to be a fantastic connection between the two adjacent areas of the city. -The ‘townhouses’ are in keeping with the scale and character of the wider Ouseburn area and the materiality is suitable and in keeping with local context. -A public space in this area would be a great amenity for passers by and locals in the area. Objections: -The scale of the tower is not at all in keeping with the local context and character of the area -The massing of the tower is too prominent in the skyline and competes and/or distracts from Newcastle’s distinct and historic landmarks. -Key views around the quayside and Ouseburn would be impeded or dominated by the tower -The landscaping is disjointed with the route through increasing in length compared to the current public throughway and unclear wayfinding with the proposed massing blocking off clear views through. More detailed reasoning: The massing and height of the proposal (in particular the tower) is compared in the D&A documents repeatedly to far off buildings at the top of the hill/valley rather than immediate context in order to try and justify a taller building than is suitable for this quayside site. Fig.1 in the accompanying image document shows a diagram used in the D&A to show how the building height has been considered in the context of the city’s horizon skyline. However this view is from the top of the hill and so distorts how the building feels in terms of the horizon skyline from various other more appropriate viewpoints. Figs.2-4 shows how this conceptual approach to massing has not been considered in the other imagery as the tower clearly and distinctly breaks the horizon line in all views. The ‘townhouses’ however do fit within this concept and are in keeping with the local context. Similarly a series of elevation diagrams have also been used to compare datums on the building to far off landmarks rather than the local context in order to use the height of the hill in the distance to justify a taller building that clearly isn’t suitable to this site (Shown in Figs.9-11). The landmarks that are highlighted around the city in the various documents are dwarfed by the tower rather than respond to it, as shown in Fig.11 where the toffee factory chimney is nominally indicated by a datum in the materiality of the building, but the tower continues far beyond the height of this landmark and detracts from its view. This also brings into question why a newbuild residential building should be a landmark in Newcastle’s skyline to be compared with Historic, Industrial and Engineered landmarks shown in the documents for comparison such as the Baltic and bridges over the Tyne. Other cities have accepted development such as this in the past but after a time have started to reverse this action through new policy. London had significant development but many central London boroughs have started to set maximum height limits at around 6 storeys after experiencing the pitfalls of oversized development. Similarly Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds have all developed en-masse and now have non-distinct skylines and landmarks. For me Newcastle has a clear identity exemplified in the unique planning policy that went into the development of the Ouseburn that large scale towers do not fit into. Views across the city where these views can be seen are also dominated by the tower in the skyline, such as the view from the quayside towards the Ouseburn where the Byker Wall no longer features as the prominent silhouette (Fig.3). Or the view from the Free Trade Inn, voted the best beer garden view in the UK by the Guardian in 2019 for its view, which will be dominated by the proposal (Fig.2). This particular view has been given a diagram in the massing D&A to show its consideration. However this diagram is clearly incorrect, views cannot bounce of walls. Fig.6 shows how this diagram actually works using basic logic, with Figs.7+8 showing how this view is impacted. This same view shows how the proposal would be seen coming down the Ouseburn (a Green link in the Newcastle plan) towards the Quayside and along the primary pedestrian route along the quayside (noted in the Newcastle plan). Currently this view is unobstructed and so allows pedestrians to find their way between the two locations. The proposal, however, blocks this view through making wayfinding much harder, and disguising the public amenity of the proposal from view, potentially making it feel more private or uncomfortable to move through. This may be especially felt with the massive overlooking from the tower above the space. I believe a better approach would be to maintain this direct view through to allow the landscaping to become both a clear and improved pedestrian route and a view corridor for inhabitants of the Ouseburn and the quayside looking east. Summary: A lower scale proposal that is in keeping with similar precedents in the area such as the Mailings would be a more suitable approach, continuing the ideas of design for the townhouses and development on Spiller Wharf, rather than a large-scale tower. The landscaping should be oriented for clear vision and wayfinding between the Quayside and Ouseburn and maintain contentious views. I feel the massing and particularly the height of the tower is far too large and feel something lower that 6 storeys would be more suited the local context on Malmo Quay. The development on Spillers Wharf doesn’t bother me as long as it’s amenity such as car parking isn’t being used to justify overdevelopment on Malmo Quay as a combined scheme. The amount of work put into this project is incredible, with a huge number of diagrams to explain the design decisions, however I feel that this in itself supports my objection as if it was a suitable scheme it would not need so much convincing. | 17/02/2022 | |
| While I do not currently live in the Newcastle area and so understand that my opinion will not be weighted as highly as someone who does, I did live in Newcastle for 6 years for university studying Architecture and developed a strong affinity with the city. The following points summarise my thoughts on the strengths of this project and the objections I have to it, with a more in depth explanation of these opinions afterwards along with accompanying imagery submitted. Positives: -Having used this space extensively over the years as a throughway between the quayside and the Ouseburn area I agree with the idea that this space needs to be developed. It has been an underused carpark and wasteland for a large amount of time and has the potential to be a fantastic connection between the two adjacent areas of the city. -The ‘townhouses’ are in keeping with the scale and character of the wider Ouseburn area and the materiality is suitable and in keeping with local context. -A public space in this area would be a great amenity for passers by and locals in the area. Objections: -The scale of the tower is not at all in keeping with the local context and character of the area -The massing of the tower is too prominent in the skyline and competes and/or distracts from Newcastle’s distinct and historic landmarks. -Key views around the quayside and Ouseburn would be impeded or dominated by the tower -The landscaping is disjointed with the route through increasing in length compared to the current public throughway and unclear wayfinding with the proposed massing blocking off clear views through. More detailed reasoning: The massing and height of the proposal (in particular the tower) is compared in the D&A documents repeatedly to far off buildings at the top of the hill/valley rather than immediate context in order to try and justify a taller building than is suitable for this quayside site. Fig.1 in the accompanying image document shows a diagram used in the D&A to show how the building height has been considered in the context of the city’s horizon skyline. However this view is from the top of the hill and so distorts how the building feels in terms of the horizon skyline from various other more appropriate viewpoints. Figs.2-4 shows how this conceptual approach to massing has not been considered in the other imagery as the tower clearly and distinctly breaks the horizon line in all views. The ‘townhouses’ however do fit within this concept and are in keeping with the local context. Similarly a series of elevation diagrams have also been used to compare datums on the building to far off landmarks rather than the local context in order to use the height of the hill in the distance to justify a taller building that clearly isn’t suitable to this site (Shown in Figs.9-11). The landmarks that are highlighted around the city in the various documents are dwarfed by the tower rather than respond to it, as shown in Fig.11 where the toffee factory chimney is nominally indicated by a datum in the materiality of the building, but the tower continues far beyond the height of this landmark and detracts from its view. This also brings into question why a newbuild residential building should be a landmark in Newcastle’s skyline to be compared with Historic, Industrial and Engineered landmarks shown in the documents for comparison such as the Baltic and bridges over the Tyne. Other cities have accepted development such as this in the past but after a time have started to reverse this action through new policy. London had significant development but many central London boroughs have started to set maximum height limits at around 6 storeys after experiencing the pitfalls of oversized development. Similarly Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds have all developed en-masse and now have non-distinct skylines and landmarks. For me Newcastle has a clear identity exemplified in the unique planning policy that went into the development of the Ouseburn that large scale towers do not fit into. Views across the city where these views can be seen are also dominated by the tower in the skyline, such as the view from the quayside towards the Ouseburn where the Byker Wall no longer features as the prominent silhouette (Fig.3). Or the view from the Free Trade Inn, voted the best beer garden view in the UK by the Guardian in 2019 for its view, which will be dominated by the proposal (Fig.2). This particular view has been given a diagram in the massing D&A to show its consideration. However this diagram is clearly incorrect, views cannot bounce of walls. Fig.6 shows how this diagram actually works using basic logic, with Figs.7+8 showing how this view is impacted. This same view shows how the proposal would be seen coming down the Ouseburn (a Green link in the Newcastle plan) towards the Quayside and along the primary pedestrian route along the quayside (noted in the Newcastle plan). Currently this view is unobstructed and so allows pedestrians to find their way between the two locations. The proposal, however, blocks this view through making wayfinding much harder, and disguising the public amenity of the proposal from view, potentially making it feel more private or uncomfortable to move through. This may be especially felt with the massive overlooking from the tower above the space. I believe a better approach would be to maintain this direct view through to allow the landscaping to become both a clear and improved pedestrian route and a view corridor for inhabitants of the Ouseburn and the quayside looking east. Summary: A lower scale proposal that is in keeping with similar precedents in the area such as the Mailings would be a more suitable approach, continuing the ideas of design for the townhouses and development on Spiller Wharf, rather than a large-scale tower. The landscaping should be oriented for clear vision and wayfinding between the Quayside and Ouseburn and maintain contentious views. I feel the massing and particularly the height of the tower is far too large and feel something lower that 6 storeys would be more suited the local context on Malmo Quay. The development on Spillers Wharf doesn’t bother me as long as it’s amenity such as car parking isn’t being used to justify overdevelopment on Malmo Quay as a combined scheme. The amount of work put into this project is incredible, with a huge number of diagrams to explain the design decisions, however I feel that this in itself supports my objection as if it was a suitable scheme it would not need so much convincing. | 17/02/2022 | |
| While I do not currently live in the Newcastle area and so understand that my opinion will not be weighted as highly as someone who does, I did live in Newcastle for 6 years for university studying Architecture and developed a strong affinity with the city. The following points summarise my thoughts on the strengths of this project and the objections I have to it, with a more in depth explanation of these opinions afterwards along with accompanying imagery submitted. Positives: -Having used this space extensively over the years as a throughway between the quayside and the Ouseburn area I agree with the idea that this space needs to be developed. It has been an underused carpark and wasteland for a large amount of time and has the potential to be a fantastic connection between the two adjacent areas of the city. -The ‘townhouses’ are in keeping with the scale and character of the wider Ouseburn area and the materiality is suitable and in keeping with local context. -A public space in this area would be a great amenity for passers by and locals in the area. Objections: -The scale of the tower is not at all in keeping with the local context and character of the area -The massing of the tower is too prominent in the skyline and competes and/or distracts from Newcastle’s distinct and historic landmarks. -Key views around the quayside and Ouseburn would be impeded or dominated by the tower -The landscaping is disjointed with the route through increasing in length compared to the current public throughway and unclear wayfinding with the proposed massing blocking off clear views through. More detailed reasoning: The massing and height of the proposal (in particular the tower) is compared in the D&A documents repeatedly to far off buildings at the top of the hill/valley rather than immediate context in order to try and justify a taller building than is suitable for this quayside site. Fig.1 in the accompanying image document shows a diagram used in the D&A to show how the building height has been considered in the context of the city’s horizon skyline. However this view is from the top of the hill and so distorts how the building feels in terms of the horizon skyline from various other more appropriate viewpoints. Figs.2-4 shows how this conceptual approach to massing has not been considered in the other imagery as the tower clearly and distinctly breaks the horizon line in all views. The ‘townhouses’ however do fit within this concept and are in keeping with the local context. Similarly a series of elevation diagrams have also been used to compare datums on the building to far off landmarks rather than the local context in order to use the height of the hill in the distance to justify a taller building that clearly isn’t suitable to this site (Shown in Figs.9-11). The landmarks that are highlighted around the city in the various documents are dwarfed by the tower rather than respond to it, as shown in Fig.11 where the toffee factory chimney is nominally indicated by a datum in the materiality of the building, but the tower continues far beyond the height of this landmark and detracts from its view. This also brings into question why a newbuild residential building should be a landmark in Newcastle’s skyline to be compared with Historic, Industrial and Engineered landmarks shown in the documents for comparison such as the Baltic and bridges over the Tyne. Other cities have accepted development such as this in the past but after a time have started to reverse this action through new policy. London had significant development but many central London boroughs have started to set maximum height limits at around 6 storeys after experiencing the pitfalls of oversized development. Similarly Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds have all developed en-masse and now have non-distinct skylines and landmarks. For me Newcastle has a clear identity exemplified in the unique planning policy that went into the development of the Ouseburn that large scale towers do not fit into. Views across the city where these views can be seen are also dominated by the tower in the skyline, such as the view from the quayside towards the Ouseburn where the Byker Wall no longer features as the prominent silhouette (Fig.3). Or the view from the Free Trade Inn, voted the best beer garden view in the UK by the Guardian in 2019 for its view, which will be dominated by the proposal (Fig.2). This particular view has been given a diagram in the massing D&A to show its consideration. However this diagram is clearly incorrect, views cannot bounce of walls. Fig.6 shows how this diagram actually works using basic logic, with Figs.7+8 showing how this view is impacted. This same view shows how the proposal would be seen coming down the Ouseburn (a Green link in the Newcastle plan) towards the Quayside and along the primary pedestrian route along the quayside (noted in the Newcastle plan). Currently this view is unobstructed and so allows pedestrians to find their way between the two locations. The proposal, however, blocks this view through making wayfinding much harder, and disguising the public amenity of the proposal from view, potentially making it feel more private or uncomfortable to move through. This may be especially felt with the massive overlooking from the tower above the space. I believe a better approach would be to maintain this direct view through to allow the landscaping to become both a clear and improved pedestrian route and a view corridor for inhabitants of the Ouseburn and the quayside looking east. Summary: A lower scale proposal that is in keeping with similar precedents in the area such as the Mailings would be a more suitable approach, continuing the ideas of design for the townhouses and development on Spiller Wharf, rather than a large-scale tower. The landscaping should be oriented for clear vision and wayfinding between the Quayside and Ouseburn and maintain contentious views. I feel the massing and particularly the height of the tower is far too large and feel something lower that 6 storeys would be more suited the local context on Malmo Quay. The development on Spillers Wharf doesn’t bother me as long as it’s amenity such as car parking isn’t being used to justify overdevelopment on Malmo Quay as a combined scheme. The amount of work put into this project is incredible, with a huge number of diagrams to explain the design decisions, however I feel that this in itself supports my objection as if it was a suitable scheme it would not need so much convincing. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| To whom it may concern, I'm writing to express my objection to the proposed Malmo Quay development. With the 18-storey residential block, I am concerned that of the 62 dwellings, no provision has been made for affordable housing. This absence indicates that the tower block is only viable as luxury flats in the form of a tower block. There is also the question of heritage and culture. Unlike other developments in Ouesburn Valley, little consideration has been given to how the tower block fits in with the region’s industrial heritage. This development is not in keeping with the historic and repurposed industrial buildings along Lime Street, and the newer apartment blocks along Riverside Walk. Both have either kept existing features or have built at a similar height to existing structures. Furthermore, the Tyne Bar has a proud history of being a free live-music venue since 1994, and Malmo Quay’s proximity to the venue places this status in jeopardy as they face the prospect of noise complaints from the regular Sunday Afternoon gigs. Indeed, the management of the pub have already expressed this concern with the development. From an infrastructure perspective, the proposed development is woefully insufficient in its provision. For instance, the current Malmo development only has provision for 18 car parking spaces for a 62-dwelling building. Though there have been claims that 73 spaces will be provided on the Spillers Wharf site, they are not a part of this application, and they won't be available for 3-4 years. Even they are provided, the site will have to service both sites and potentially cover 76 apartments. The developers have not properly considered what this area will look like in future. Already since Spillers Wharf has become a Pay and Display car park, the existing on- street parking near the Free Trade Inn has not been able to take the extra capacity. This problem will only worsen in future, especially since the current 150 capacity car park will likely make way for the proposed development of the Cycle Hub. There is also the question of more cars compromising the existing public transport and cycling infrastructure. Currently no buses pass the site, and the two Metro stations are over 1km away up long, steep gradients. Therefore, the site is not accessible for those without cars, and it will also make Route 72 of the National Cycle Route more dangerous. This is because cycleway is heavily used, especially by families at weekends. More traffic will compromise highway safety as the route runs parallel to the proposed tower block development, as well as Spillers Wharf. I regularly walk cycle along the path at weekends, and when I’m on the bike l have to make sure that I don’t hit the increasing number of pedestrians in the area near the Tyne Bar. Though they are not part of the proposals for Malmo Quay, the proposed development of the Cycle Hub is also fraught with issues. Though it will be rehomed, there is currently no provision for blue-badge disabled spaces, as the 6 spots are being taken away from the Spillers Wharf Car Park. The current plans for the rehoming also have inadequate space for the bike workshop and bike hiring facilities of the hub’s operations. Given that the hub is community asset that benefits the health of the city, the fact that there is only adequate space for the café is worrying. Of course, the redevelopment of the hub will also include 2 maisonette flats above and houses adjacent to it will place yet more pressure to provide parking spaces. All of this does not even consider the upcoming developments of the Whey Aye Wheel and the Giants on the Quayside leisure complex on the Spillers Flour Mill site that will add further traffic congestion with the increased footfall from tourism. All of the reasons I have stated above suggest the proponents of this development have not properly considered the past and future development of the Ouseburn Valley and Quayside regions. As a result, it is wholly inadequate for both the residents of these areas and the visitors of the area that come from the rest of the city. I therefore object to this planning development and advise that you reject this application. Kind Regards, Robin Batchelor | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| To whom it may concern, I'm writing to express my objection to the proposed Malmo Quay development. With the 18-storey residential block, I am concerned that of the 62 dwellings, no provision has been made for affordable housing. This absence indicates that the tower block is only viable as luxury flats in the form of a tower block. There is also the question of heritage and culture. Unlike other developments in Ouesburn Valley, little consideration has been given to how the tower block fits in with the region’s industrial heritage. This development is not in keeping with the historic and repurposed industrial buildings along Lime Street, and the newer apartment blocks along Riverside Walk. Both have either kept existing features or have built at a similar height to existing structures. Furthermore, the Tyne Bar has a proud history of being a free live-music venue since 1994, and Malmo Quay’s proximity to the venue places this status in jeopardy as they face the prospect of noise complaints from the regular Sunday Afternoon gigs. Indeed, the management of the pub have already expressed this concern with the development. From an infrastructure perspective, the proposed development is woefully insufficient in its provision. For instance, the current Malmo development only has provision for 18 car parking spaces for a 62-dwelling building. Though there have been claims that 73 spaces will be provided on the Spillers Wharf site, they are not a part of this application, and they won't be available for 3-4 years. Even they are provided, the site will have to service both sites and potentially cover 76 apartments. The developers have not properly considered what this area will look like in future. Already since Spillers Wharf has become a Pay and Display car park, the existing on- street parking near the Free Trade Inn has not been able to take the extra capacity. This problem will only worsen in future, especially since the current 150 capacity car park will likely make way for the proposed development of the Cycle Hub. There is also the question of more cars compromising the existing public transport and cycling infrastructure. Currently no buses pass the site, and the two Metro stations are over 1km away up long, steep gradients. Therefore, the site is not accessible for those without cars, and it will also make Route 72 of the National Cycle Route more dangerous. This is because cycleway is heavily used, especially by families at weekends. More traffic will compromise highway safety as the route runs parallel to the proposed tower block development, as well as Spillers Wharf. I regularly walk cycle along the path at weekends, and when I’m on the bike l have to make sure that I don’t hit the increasing number of pedestrians in the area near the Tyne Bar. Though they are not part of the proposals for Malmo Quay, the proposed development of the Cycle Hub is also fraught with issues. Though it will be rehomed, there is currently no provision for blue-badge disabled spaces, as the 6 spots are being taken away from the Spillers Wharf Car Park. The current plans for the rehoming also have inadequate space for the bike workshop and bike hiring facilities of the hub’s operations. Given that the hub is community asset that benefits the health of the city, the fact that there is only adequate space for the café is worrying. Of course, the redevelopment of the hub will also include 2 maisonette flats above and houses adjacent to it will place yet more pressure to provide parking spaces. All of this does not even consider the upcoming developments of the Whey Aye Wheel and the Giants on the Quayside leisure complex on the Spillers Flour Mill site that will add further traffic congestion with the increased footfall from tourism. All of the reasons I have stated above suggest the proponents of this development have not properly considered the past and future development of the Ouseburn Valley and Quayside regions. As a result, it is wholly inadequate for both the residents of these areas and the visitors of the area that come from the rest of the city. I therefore object to this planning development and advise that you reject this application. Kind Regards, Robin Batchelor | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I strongly object to the Malmo Quay development, as the proposed tower block is entirely inappropriate to the context of the surrounding area. Not only will it create a huge shadow over Ouseburn and its existing attractions (pubs such as Tyne Bar and Free Trade Inn), but its design is totally not inkeeping with the beautiful historical architecture of the area. As a Heaton resident who spends the majority of their time in Ouseburn, the Malmo Quay development is a grim prospect. Cramming 73 apartments into this block is also likely to cause overcrowding in terms of vehicles. I believe the proposed development will cancel out what makes Ouseburn such an attractive area. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I strongly object to the Malmo Quay development, as the proposed tower block is entirely inappropriate to the context of the surrounding area. Not only will it create a huge shadow over Ouseburn and its existing attractions (pubs such as Tyne Bar and Free Trade Inn), but its design is totally not inkeeping with the beautiful historical architecture of the area. As a Heaton resident who spends the majority of their time in Ouseburn, the Malmo Quay development is a grim prospect. Cramming 73 apartments into this block is also likely to cause overcrowding in terms of vehicles. I believe the proposed development will cancel out what makes Ouseburn such an attractive area . | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I strongly object to the Malmo Quay development, as the proposed tower block is entirely inappropriate to the context of the surrounding area. Not only will it create a huge shadow over Ouseburn and its existing attractions (pubs such as Tyne Bar and Free Trade Inn), but its design is totally not inkeeping with the beautiful historical architecture of the area. As a Heaton resident who spends the majority of their time in Ouseburn, the Malmo Quay development is a grim prospect. Cramming 73 apartments into this block is also likely to cause overcrowding in terms of vehicles. I believe the proposed development will cancel out what makes Ouseburn such an attractive area . | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I strongly object to the Malmo Quay development, as the proposed tower block is entirely inappropriate to the context of the surrounding area. Not only will it create a huge shadow over Ouseburn and its existing attractions (pubs such as Tyne Bar and Free Trade Inn), but its design is totally not inkeeping with the beautiful historical architecture of the area. As a Heaton resident who spends the majority of their time in Ouseburn, the Malmo Quay development is a grim prospect. Cramming 73 apartments into this block is also likely to cause overcrowding in terms of vehicles. I believe the proposed development will cancel out what makes Ouseburn such an attractive area. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| Quality of design; Quite obvious, but there's very little merit in a beige 18 story tower block in such a prominent position. Does not fit in with the surrounding area, including the historic and repurposed industrial buildings of the East End of the Quayside and Ouseburn. Looks like the building was designed in the 70s and is completely out of touch with the surroundings. Parking; The submitted plans for Malmo Quay appear to only show 18 parking spaces for the proposed 62 apartments of the tower block, woefully inadequate and guaranteed to even greater pressure on local on-street parking, and creating potentially dangerous situations on the national cycle route. Accessibility - Public transport links are extremely limited with no buses passing the site currently. Access to the two nearest metro stations both involve long, steep gradients and both are over a kilometre away. The Scale and massing of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for it's location. This in touch would ruin the live venues in the area as there will most defiantly be complaints over noise. To put this monstrosity of a building in the place of one of the most unique and important place in newcastle is comoletely wrong and preventing this is detrimental to the future of the The Scale and massing of a tower block this size is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will dominate the Quayside, Ouseburn and East End. The building will be the biggest on the Quayside by some margin and is inappropriate for it's location. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to this development on the basis of the negative impact on the rich cultural history of the Ouseburn and it's diverse communities. Equally I object on the basis that there is no provision for affordable housing within the development. | 17/02/2022 | Neutral |
| I would like to object to the planning proposal REF: 2021/2404/01 EIA Development Malmo and Spillers Quays on the grounds that this contravenes local and national planning policy. In the Council’s own Policy on Tall Buildings - in progress - it states: “A Tall Building Guidance SPD will provide a way of assessing proposals for tall buildings city-wide including historically sensitive areas and the Tyne Gorge. Unless an exceptional case can be made there, will, however, be a presumption against tall buildings that; rise from the River Tyne bankside level significantly higher than present landmark structures on the Quayside.” This building is a tall building which would have an enormous and very negative impact on the Tyne gorge and there seems to be no real reason for having a tall building here other than that it is not economic to develop the site otherwise - this is not a good enough reason to override policy on protecting some of our city, and Gateshead’s, finest assets. I do not believe that a tall building is appropriate in this location and think that this proposal contravenes Newcastle’s Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework for the following reasons: It is not of exceptional design quality. It is not appropriately located (see above point on impact on the Tyne gorge). It does not contribute positively to sustainability given that climate change means it is likely that it will be susceptible to flooding. It does not contribute positively to place making - the Ouseburn Valley and this part of the Quayside contain a number of highly successful businesses and homes and while it would be wonderful to see further development in this area, this tower risks damaging what is currently a successful place which is enjoyable to visit and live in. It will not bring significant regeneration and public benefit to this area which has already been successfully regenerated. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I am reluctantly objecting to the hybrid application for the proposed scheme for Malmo Quay and outline scheme for Spillers Quay. I had hoped to be able to support the application for Malmo Quay at least, but on balance, I find there is more to object to than to support. In meetings with their representatives in 2006, Igloo told us how, as a socially-responsible developer, they were committed to positive, creative, well-designed, and sustainable developments which recognise the character of the area and also seek to benefit the local community. Since that time, the developments at the Malings and Lower Steenberg’s Yard have involved significant levels of community involvement, and the finished products took into account much of the comment from local residents and community members with years of experience of engagement with regeneration initiatives in the Ouseburn Valley. On this occasion, and whilst accepting that the scheme is proposed for an incredibly difficult site, and that many hours of work have gone into trying to find a financially viable scheme, the developer does not seem to have taken the same care to ensure that the scheme proposed would fulfil the aspirations of those who live in, work in, or visit the Valley. The comments below focus on the following: • Significant damage to the iconic view from the Free Trade Inn • Removal of Cycle Hub from Spillers Quay to Malmo Quay • Massing and design of the 18 storey block • Design of town houses • Landscaping and through routes • Lack of homes for sale or rent at affordable levels • Spillers Quay View from the Free Trade Inn This iconic view strikes such a chord with local residents and visitors alike that earlier development proposals have generated petitions, each with several thousand names. Indeed, the planning application points out the “panoramic elevated westward view into Malmo Quays and the corniche of Newcastle’s East Quayside from outside of a strategically important and culturally celebrated public house” and states that “The unique feature of the view is the curve of the quayside leading the eye to key features on the city centre skyline”. It goes on to list all the many important buildings and other features that can currently be seen from the Free Trade. The Free Trade is one of several pubs which are at the heart of the community of the East End of Newcastle. It has been an important meeting place for people from the art, music, and theatre world for over 40 years, as well as people who visit Newcastle for tourism and for football matches, and to enjoy a wide range of beers. It is also an immensely popular spot from which to view firework displays and river activities on the Tyne. The view delights all who visit the pub, and is an important feature of our city. In relation to the 2007 planning application (the “Wimpey Gateway”), it was noted that signatories to the petition against the development came from across Tyneside, across the region, and well beyond, including 10 visitors from countries such as America, Canada, Ireland, Australia, and Thailand. The view is mentioned in numerous tourist guides to Newcastle and Tyneside, and in 2007, just as the planning application was being considered, was one of 16 across the country being shown on ITV2 in a series called “Britain’s Best View”. Igloo has over many years assured us that the iconic view would be protected. In reality, a narrow corridor through which the Millennium Bridge can be seen is all that would be left if this scheme was allowed to be built. The planning application itself acknowledges this: “there would be minor loss of visual amenity with both cathedral spires remaining visible with the contemporary residential Hadrian Tower on the skyline”. “The sweep of the crescent of the East Quayside [would be] replaced by a framed view of the Millennium Bridge”. It refers to the “major adverse effect of reducing views of the crescent of the full Newcastle-Gateshead Quayside to a framed view” while asserting that “the resultant view would be very attractive in its own right”. This may be a true statement for those who find the proposed development attractive, but it still leaves a significantly reduced view which simply does not match the developer’s promise to protect this iconic view. The change in the view would be far less drastic if the building intended for the Cycle Hub on the tip of the “peninsula” was not placed there, and if the 3 storey town houses near the mouth of the burn were replaced with 2 storey houses. Removal of Cycle Hub from Spillers Quay to Malmo Quay The building was provided as part of the East Quayside work done by the Tyne & Wear Development Corporation, built for the local community, and used by the local community. It should not be demolished as part of the Spillers Quay work. The Cycle Hub has been a great success, for Ouseburn and for Newcastle. It is a focal point for cyclists and walkers from across the world travelling along Hadrian’s Way or the Coast to Coast cycle path. The project is a feather in the cap of Newcastle which will be put at risk by being moved across the burn to smaller, less adaptable premises. This would mean as I understand it, no space for storage of bikes for hire or for offices for bike-related organisations, and therefore far less possibility of different elements supporting and cross-subsidising each other. The risk of the loss of these businesses would be embarrassing and quite damaging for the reputation of the city. Massing and design of the 18 storey block I support the idea of a tall building on this site, which could be a real focal point and an asset to the area. It is also understood that the site’s difficulties mean that a tall building is needed to make the scheme financially viable. The brick façade of the tower block is an attractive feature, as is the overall design with its chamfered edges. However, the overall impression of the building is unfortunately of an intrusive structure, wherever it is viewed from, other than from the river opposite the site. The trellis at the top looks particularly out-of-keeping with the architecture of the area. Two viewpoints make the point to me that the design is not right for the site: Viewpoint 4C (as well as 18B) from the Tyne Bridge, showing the tower framed by the Millennium Bridge and looking at odds with the riverscape; and View 13 from Horatio Street, which shows the tower as a massive structure overshadowing the whole of that area. This will have a detrimental effect on the historic buildings such as the Ouseburn School and the Sailors’ Bethel. Design of town houses The town houses appear to be of an attractive design, with a pleasant brick facing and a variety of shapes for the roofs. Landscaping and through routes The garden areas, design of the areas surrounding the houses, and the maintenance of the cycle route and ease of access for the general public around the buildings other than the private gardens, is all to be welcomed. Lack of homes for sale or rent at affordable levels It is understood that there are to be no houses or flats for rent or for sale at affordable levels, and no social housing element to the scheme. Setting up a new development which excludes people with lower or modest incomes is to be regretted, and is not socially responsible. Spillers Quay The fact that Spillers Quay is included in the application but only for outline planning permission means that any comments made about a future application, one with more detail about the nature and design of the buildings, will have very limited value. The drawings which are currently available for this site show very uninteresting blocks, over-development of the site, and little or no mixed use for the site. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed development on the Malmo Quay site by PfP Igloo. I have lived in the Ouseburn area for 13 years. In my opinion, the proposed tower block would be an eyesore and completely out of keeping with the other buildings in the area. The mocked-up images show the tower block completely dominating the skyline, and dwarfing existing blocks of flats like Mariners Wharf. The tower block would really be a blot on the landscape and set the tone for other potential developments, changing the feeling of the area completely. I also struggle to imagine anyone could design an uglier building. It would be a huge shame to add this hideous building to the skyline of the quayside. It is hard to believe that PfP Igloo claim to have given careful consideration to the size of the building, or to be endeavouring to create a sculptural landmark with this monstrosity. It would also be a big shame to lose the existing Cycle Hub and rehouse it in a much smaller venue. I would urge the council not to grant permission for this development to go ahead, and instead seek applications from developers who are able to much more sensitively propose something in keeping with the existing area. Alternatively, if it really isn't possible to make it financially viable without building such a large development, maybe the area could be given over to something else entirely, like a park or green space for the neighbourhood. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| - The fact that the development is not financially viable without the high rise building makes it a questionable investment to begin with. - the 18storey building will dominate the entrance to the ouseburn, the view from key buisnesses, which double as community hubs such as free trade pub, the tyne bar and the cycle Hub - the long term implications for these businesses in light of increased residential properties around them and potential complaints/restrictions around noise/public use of the area - increased car use around the ouseburn area which is frequently used by families for accessing local facilities by foot. - the building is not in keeping with the existing area which has been purposefully developed with local history, local business and local culture in mind and, as a result of this strategy, has become a nationally and internationally recognised area for culture, precisely because it is not blighted by outside developers - the long term impact on the boat club that uses the ouseburn and is part of local heritage - the impact on light and view of the quayside - the impact on natural habitats - the development does not contribute to the cities wider promise of a greener city - the development will damage the environment, public ownerships and access and the aesthetic principles of the ouseburn and the quayside for generations to come. - the development undermines existing local communities and buisnesses not just in the ouseburn and on the quayside but also the neighbouring communities, in particular Heaton, Shieldfield, Battlefield, Byker and St Peters for whom the Ouseburn is an extension and part of their daily life and local community. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I write to object to the proposed development, which is fatally compromised by the 18-storey block. This is significantly out of proportion, and utterly insensitive to the industrial heritage of the Ouseburn. Unlike the renovations of existing buildings in the Ouseburn, and more sensitive recent developments, the scale and massing of this tower will totally dominate the area and fundamentally change its character. A building of this scale in such a prominent position should have truly exceptional architectural merit if it is to be approved: this has none, and looks shabby and dated even in the renders. New developments of more than fifteen units should include 20% affordable housing: this development appears to lack this entirely, which will worsen an existing problem in Newcastle and entrench inequality. Public transport in this area is already poor, with the nearest metro stations being more than a kilometre away up steep hills, and a 15-minute interval Q3 bus service that is frequently held up in traffic. The block has far fewer car parking spaces than units: while I support this in principle, to reduce car dependency it would require far better public transport provision to be viable. In reality, especially given the likely target market of these flats (which as mentioned above, do not seem to include any affordable housing provision), this will simply mean that residents of this block and the other buildings in the proposed developments park their cars on local streets and cause additional traffic. Most residents are unlikely to forgo owning a car altogether. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I want to register my objection to this proposed development. This building would ruin the vista of the quayside and is totally out of keeping with the existing buildings in the area. It is way too high and ugly and would spoil the area. I strongly object to this proposed development. It is completely out of character of the location and will destroy the precious nature of the community. Looking at it from say the Tyne Bridge, the elevation would draw the eye to say nothing of the Tyne views from above the site. Please do not give it approval | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to every part of this application. Firstly it has been stated in several places that the land on Malmo Quay is of no intrinsic value yet for this development to proceed the Council is prepared to spend several million pounds of taxpayers money to move the main sewer, associated pumping station, and other parts of the infrastructure to prepare the site to make it profitable for the developers. The tower block is in contravention of the Newcastle SPD on Tall Buildings as it is significantly taller than any landmark structures, of which there are several, in the vicinity. The Tyne Gorge Study 2003 also shows high rise developments such as this would cause loss of the gorge as a feature. The height of the tower will cast shadow for most of the day over residences in the Ouseburn Conservation area to the north of it In the Ouseburn Valley a vibrant community has been generated over a number of years and I feel this development will be detrimental to this community asset. In the proposed building itself the size of the appartments are of concern. Once again there is little consideration of the new 'working from home' society we now live in and in my view most appartments are unsuitable for this lifestyle. There is insufficient outside space for recreation and a lack of biodiversity. There is no provision for affordable housing. Although the development is for rent, it will be high end rental for professionals! There are too few parking spaces for the size and nature of the development, the outline nature of the Spillars Quay development means the promised extra parking may never come to fruition. The electric car charging points are too few and of poor quality, a full charge would take over 30 hours. Lack of public transport is a real issue, it is insufficient for the current inhabitants of the area. To say the metro at Byker is convenient when it is so far away and up a steep incline is ridiculous. There are no shops nearby so a car would almost be a necessity. Losing the current cycle hub would be a real loss for many people who use it for recreation, the building itself has become a real feature on the riverside and what is proposed is unsuitable as it would not allow the hub to function in the way it does now. The noise assessment have not been carried out correctly. the main source of 'noise' in the area would be the bands playing at The Tyne Bar. This music is provided free and is an intergal parts of the community on the Ouseburn. Any complaint about this would end this community asset forever and can not be allowed to happen. Lip service is paid in the plan to the population as a whole being able to enjoy the views of the Tyne river from this area as the have been able to for decades and is well demonstarted in the warmer months when hundreds of people come to the area to enjoy the meeting places in the area, i.e. The Tyne Bar, The Free Trade and The Cycle Hub, all of which will be negatively affected by these proposals. There is an opportunity, which must not be missed, to provide an area of benefit to all the community. The lack of any green space along the river is noticeable and allowing this site to be a green space would stop the whole quayside being built up and give the biodiversity that is much needed. An area of beauty should be developed as a gateway to the Ouseburn Conservation area for the benefit of all! | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| 1. Adequate sound proofing has not been planned for the development. This will lead to complaints from residents against local community established venues such as Tyne Bar. Ultimately this will effect trade. 2. The block is not in keeping with the historic Quayside which is an iconic skyline 3. There is not adequate parking with the development which will lead to increased parking in the street and nearby impacting on walkers and cyclists | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| This development is inappropriate to the unique atmosphere and heritage to this end of the quayside. It will be intrusive to the skyline and cast a shadow over businesses including pubs that are some of the most beloved in Newcastle. The Ouseburn pubs are a unique and authentic part of the charm of this part of town and this development will ruin something that cannot be replaced. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| This development is inappropriate to the unique atmosphere and heritage to this end of the quayside. It will be intrusive to the skyline and cast a shadow over businesses including pubs that are some of the most beloved in Newcastle. The Ouseburn pubs are a unique and authentic part of the charm of this part of town and this development will ruin something that cannot be replaced. | 17/02/2022 | Object |
| Are you having a laugh? The development is a total mess. Involve the local Ouseburn community and ask them what they want. And once those views have been lost that’s it. Gone forever. Newcastle, you are better than this. | 18/02/2022 | Object |
| Are you having a laugh? The development is a total mess. Involve the local Ouseburn community and ask them what they want. And once those views have been lost that’s it. Gone forever. Newcastle, you are better than this. | 18/02/2022 | Object |
| Are you having a laugh? The development is a total mess. Involve the local Ouseburn community and ask them what they want. And once those views have been lost that’s it. Gone forever. Newcastle, you are better than this. | 18/02/2022 | Object |
| The building will be an eyesore to the quayside, ruining locally run businesses, spoiling views and not in keeping of the surroundings. | 18/02/2022 | Object |
| The building will be an eyesore to the quayside, ruining locally run businesses, spoiling views and not in keeping of the surroundings. | 18/02/2022 | Object |
| The building will be an eyesore to the quayside, ruining locally run businesses, spoiling views and not in keeping of the surroundings. | 18/02/2022 | Object |
| It will dominate the skyline and the the iconic city vista and will threaten local businesses. It also offers no provision for affordable housing. | 18/02/2022 | Object |
| While I understand the need to develop these sites and the need to provide housing in the city, I wish to object to the building of the tower block at Malmo Quay. The high rise design is totally out of keeping with the local built environment and landforms. It will do nothing to enhance the area. I have seen, enjoyed and been proud to show off the development of Newcastle Quayside over the past decades and this will negatively impact the iconic views from virtually every angle. I regularly walk along from the Swing Bridge to the Cycle Hub and was sad, that were the tower block to be built, it would pierce the world famous views of the Tyne Bridges the whole way along. Surely our city council will not grant permission for a development that would damage its global image? In addition, the lack of parking with the proposed density of housing is bound to have an impact on local residents and businesses and will do nothing to enhance the experience of visitors to the many attractions of the Quayside and Ouseburn, as well as those completing the Hadrian's Path and cycleway - both high profile, prestigious national routes. Develop these post-industrial sites, by all means, but please, please, please ensure it will enhance the great work done in moving the area forward not detract from our world famous city's reputation." | 18/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to the proposed development at Malmo Quay (2021/2404/01/EIA) particularly the proposed 18 storey tower block of 62 apartments on the Quayside for the following reasons: 1. The design of the 18 storey tower block is not in keeping and out of scale and character with the local area. 2. The proposed tower block would overshadow the businesses and residential buildings already in the area. 3. The proposed car parking is alarmingly insufficient. At present Ouseburn enjoys a rich mix of independent business, culture and residential dwellings. The proposed tower will threatens this balance - the scale of the 18 storey tower will dwarf the surroundings. A building of such scale is better suited to the centre of the city or on higher ground and certainly not at the riverside. Thank you, Neil. | 18/02/2022 | Object |
| Technical objection on noise (Agent of Change) - Submitted on behalf of The Tyne Bar. Expert Acoustics Review. | 18/02/2022 | Object |
| This will ruin the area and be detrimental to the live music scene that has been established for uears | 19/02/2022 | Object |
| This is a disgraceful idea. It’s one of the best pubs in Ouseburn and a credit to society. Putting a high rise in front of this view is counterproductive and takes no consideration to the community. | 19/02/2022 | Object |
| This is a disgraceful idea. It’s one of the best pubs in Ouseburn and a credit to society. Putting a high rise in front of this view is counterproductive and takes no consideration to the community. | 19/02/2022 | Object |
| This is a disgraceful idea. It’s one of the best pubs in Ouseburn and a credit to society. Putting a high rise in front of this view is counterproductive and takes no consideration to the community. | 19/02/2022 | Object |
| This is a disgraceful idea. It’s one of the best pubs in Ouseburn and a credit to society. Putting a high rise in front of this view is counterproductive and takes no consideration to the community. | 19/02/2022 | Object |
| This is a disgraceful idea. It’s one of the best pubs in Ouseburn and a credit to society. Putting a high rise in front of this view is counterproductive and takes no consideration to the community. | 19/02/2022 | Object |
| This is a disgraceful idea. It’s one of the best pubs in Ouseburn and a credit to society. Putting a high rise in front of this view is counterproductive and takes no consideration to the community. | 19/02/2022 | Object |
| This is a disgraceful idea. It’s one of the best pubs in Ouseburn and a credit to society. Putting a high rise in front of this view is counterproductive and takes no consideration to the community. | 19/02/2022 | Object |
| This is a disgraceful idea. It’s one of the best pubs in Ouseburn and a credit to society. Putting a high rise in front of this view is counterproductive and takes no consideration to the community. | 19/02/2022 | Object |
| It needs to be pointed out that there is very strong evidence that Igloo have not made proper allowance for noise pollution from Tyne Bar and surrounding Ouseburn activities, and that asking the new residents to keep their windows closed isn't good enough. an 18 story building utterly inappropriate for the area, the proposed development is an eyesore which ruins the famous view down the river. | 19/02/2022 | Object |
| The building will effect the surrounding area both in terms of aesthetics and the ability of local pubs to stage musical performances. The building will have a detrimental effect and is not in keeping with the surrounding area. | 19/02/2022 | Object |
| Several factors form this opinion for my objection Climate change had not been considered within the application for sea level rise Prolonged construction and disruption during the construction phase to the local businesses and residents The building height is considerable and imposing The local access routes in and out are poor and public transit is very poor Existing utility infrastructure cannot accommodate this and pumping stations create legacy issue for maintenance and unreliability The overall appearance is not in keeping | 19/02/2022 | Object |
| Apart from the change to the city scape the lack of parking for the new residents will exacerbated an already scare parking resource. All the potential residents should have their own dedicated parking allocation not rely on on street parking near by | 20/02/2022 | Object |
| This is a poor idea on many fronts. There is a serious lack of parking provision for this tower block in an already congested area. The driving routes to and from the quayside via A186/Walker Rd. are limited and unable to support the increased number of vehicles of new residents. This stretch of Quayside is part of the National Cycle Network (Coast to Coast, Hadrian's Cycleway routes) and increased traffic does nothing for cyclists using the road here The Cycle Hub has become an important landmark on the Quayside and if/when forced to move to accommodate changes to Spillers Quay, will be unable to use Malmo Quay in its current form, a huge disappointment for the Hub and businesses inside. The architecture, size, and scale are hugely inappropriate for the area, and out of keeping with the Ouseburn and Quayside's existing landmarks. Future development of Spillers Quay will only compound issues of traffic, congestions, impact on cyclists and many of the local businesses' viability, on top of the damage done by this proposal for Malmo Quay. | 21/02/2022 | Object |
| Money can't be the driver for everything! Sometimes natural beauty, a thriving community, views, the feeling a place gives you should be left alone. The plans for this ouseburn development are obscene, not in keeping within anything and no doubt will only house students who are not from Newcastle, meaning long term the locals dont benefit from it. Its going to block some amazing views. If the council wants to invest in tidying up the area, then great but developers cant just put huge buildings anywhere just to line their own pockets. We, the people of the ouseburn will not stand. We will fight, we will unite!!! Power to the people | 22/02/2022 | Object |
| This development has the potential to destroy the feel of the ouseburn, and will have a direct detrimental effect on music venues including The Tyne Bar. | 22/02/2022 | Object |
| This development has the potential to destroy the feel of the ouseburn, and will have a direct detrimental effect on music venues including The Tyne Bar. | 22/02/2022 | Object |
| I'd like to formally object to this on a few grounds. - Firstly this will be being built on a national cycle route between Newcastle and Tynemouth. The amount of residents-parking spaces in the proposal is disproportionate which will lead to an increase in the already congested on street parking in the area putting cyclists,drivers and other pedestrians at risk. - Secondly it would be running a heritage view of the river Tyne, this building would utterly dominate the skyline in the area making it look awful. - Thirdly and most importantly noise complaints would be made by residents about the existing venues in the area meaning they'd likely have the cease staging live music which would be catastrophic to the area. The Ouseburn is one of the few places left in the area with a vibrant cultural scene which I believe this would Ruin. Overall this proposal is very dangerous for the area and I cannot express how strongly I oppose it. Please make sure this doesn't happen. | 22/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to this proposal on the grounds that; It is out of keeping with the historic nature of the quayside. It will contribute to traffic congestion and parking difficulties. It will over shadow and block light from nearby residences and businesses. The current cycle hub is well placed and well used. It is ugly and unimaginative! | 23/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to this proposal on the grounds that; It is out of keeping with the historic nature of the quayside. It will contribute to traffic congestion and parking difficulties. It will over shadow and block light from nearby residences and businesses. The current cycle hub is well placed and well used. It is ugly and unimaginative! | 23/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to this proposal on the grounds that; It is out of keeping with the historic nature of the quayside. It will contribute to traffic congestion and parking difficulties. It will over shadow and block light from nearby residences and businesses. The current cycle hub is well placed and well used. It is ugly and unimaginative! | 23/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to this proposal on the grounds that; It is out of keeping with the historic nature of the quayside. It will contribute to traffic congestion and parking difficulties. It will over shadow and block light from nearby residences and businesses. The current cycle hub is well placed and well used. It is ugly and unimaginative! | 23/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to this proposal on the grounds that; It is out of keeping with the historic nature of the quayside. It will contribute to traffic congestion and parking difficulties. It will over shadow and block light from nearby residences and businesses. The current cycle hub is well placed and well used. It is ugly and unimaginative! | 23/02/2022 | Object |
| I object to this development for the following reasons: 1. The proposed tower block is totally out of proportion to the nearby buildings and new development, towering above them and dominating the landscape, and being out of scale with its surroundings. In particular there are many historic buildings in the surrounding Quayside and Ouseburn areas and in neither scale nor design is this block respectful or sympathetic to them. 2. Provision of parking is limited, putting pressure on nearby on-street parking in an area which is not well-served by public transport links. 3. The nearby cycle hub building is a community focal point where cyclists meet up and commence rides, as well as offering bike repairs. The proposed move of the Cycle Hub to Malmo Quay where it will have a smaller base will reduce its value in promoting cycling in an area which has a national cycling route passing through it. | 23/02/2022 | Object |
| I quite frankly cannot believe how this development could be permitted. The proposed building is ugly in the extreme. It will completely ruin the view along the historic and iconic Newcastle quayside. We need to preserve the appearance of our area not totally wreck it! Common sense must prevail here as any idiot can see from the proposed development drawings how hideous and out of place it looks. This development MUST not be granted permission to proceed. | 23/02/2022 | Object |
| I object in the strongest possible terms to the proposed 18 storey tower on Malmo Quay. My reasons: 1. The proposed height, colour and build quality will make it an eyesore from day one. It will be oppressive and out of scale with the existing built heritage of the wider Newcastle Quayside and of Ouseburn, two areas that are finally coming into their own. Areas that, today, are aesthetically pleasing and a tremendous source of community pleasure and pride. The proposed Malmo tower would be akin to dumping a Get Carter-type monstrosity into what is becoming a wonderful public realm. Why would you build something that would detract from views of the Tyne and Millennium Bridges and the wonderful promenade with its artistic and ornamental street furniture? 2. The bare minimum level of car parking provision proposed is inadequate. The existing car park adjacent to The Cycle Hub is often brimming on a weekend as it is. When that goes, where would the majority of Malmo tower residents park?! 3. An 18 storey building would cast such a shadow over existing residences, that loss of light would have an impact on quality of life there. 4. The Tyne Bar and Free Trade Inn are such well-established, iconic businesses in our area that their ongoing viability must be protected. They are vital to the thriving culture of the Ouseburn. How long would it be before Malmo residents were complaining about noise from their live music nights and popular beer gardens? Please don’t allow the tower to go ahead! If the Malmo redevelopment is only financially viable by inflicting this concrete nightmare on us, then don’t redevelop it. Local residents would be so much happier with a bandstand, some flower beds and a scattering of park benches. | 28/02/2022 | Object |
| I wish to offer my objections to the proposed Malmo Quay development on the grounds that the proposals, particularly relating to the 18-storey apartment block will destroy the late industrial/historical character of the area. The 18-storey tower block itself is of a design and construction which, whilst no doubt exploiting the attractive river views available to the potential owners/lessees of its apartments, lacks any aesthetic contribution to the appearance of the riverscape and in fact represents a potential eyesore to those unfortunate enough to have to look at it. It also compromises the amenity of the river views enjoyed by residents and patrons of local business, whilst being totally lacking in any artistic, design. or architectural merit which might compensate for its being imposed on our riverscape. It exploits our city whilast detracting from it. | 01/03/2022 | Object |
| I object to application reference 2021/2404/01/EIA, Malmo Quay. A building of This size and scale, in an area such as the ouseburn makes no sense: it is aesthetically not inkeeping with the History of the space, the skyline of the ouseburn, will be a detriment to two of the local pubs (both of which will undoubtably be adversly affected ( Tyne bar by noise complaints- which it is already recieving, and Free Trade Inn due to the blocking of its iconic view). Alongside this, there is insuffiecient parking being allowed for for a building of this size and occupancy, alongside which the increased level of road traffic would be a detriment to the air quality, safety of pedestrians and cyclists, and current occupants of this area- there is no easy access to public transport of any kind. alongside this, The plans for the rehousing of Cycle Hub are inadequate and unfair to the current occupants. This Hub serves a national cycle route, and an interuption to this would be detrimental to not only the cycling community of newcastle, but that of proof that newcastle council does not care about the benefits of cycling, either for the local populations health and wellbeing, or the environmental boon cycling provides. | 01/03/2022 | Object |
| The proposed development including the high rise residential block are not in keeping with the existing development.The design is inappropriate and doesn't fit with the surrounding area in terms of mass and scale and also doesn't complement the regenerated parts of the closet parts of the Ouseburn - i.e. the old buildings that have been refurbished and converted, sympathteically. The proposed design in scale and proportion are notin keeping with the quayside context. The design is clearly not a response to the site and setting it seems to be a a function of viability, allowing it to progress on that basis would be short sighted and detrimental to the good regeneration that has been achieved in the area. | 01/03/2022 | Object |
| The proposal will fundamentally create a negative impact to this artisan and varied area. Housing is already causing issues for businesses and further housing and this very ugly tower will also negatively impact the businesses in the area. | 01/03/2022 | Object |
| The proposal will fundamentally create a negative impact to this artisan and varied area. Housing is already causing issues for businesses and further housing and this very ugly tower will also negatively impact the businesses in the area. | 01/03/2022 | Object |
| I would like to submit my objection to the proposed development of Malmo Quay. The size and architecture of the proposed development is not in keeping with the topography of the area, is will create a large cumbersome eye sore which will take away from the current beauty and integrity of the landscape in the area. The proposed size of the development causes many issues in terms of parking in the area- there a nowhere near enough spaces to accommodate the amount of people who could live in this development- this will have a direct and detrimental effect on the community aspects of that area and would make the area dangerous. Again the area is used extensively by the local community- the development would have a direct effect on the air quality in the area, along with overshadowing the area thus removing its public use. The amount of waste created by such a large development will cause a large amount of pollution that will have a direct effect on the wildlife in the local area. | 01/03/2022 | Object |
| i object to this or any similar dwellings being permitted to be built in the area. The ouseburn is a lively community where the arts have made a home and it is unfair to impose on that community that keeps so many people from all around the North East feel involved and cared for in a community. The building will no doubt be subject of noise pollution due to the music culture around the ouseburn involving but not limited to Tyne bar, band practice rooms and breweries whose customers and employees will be at risk due to imposing buildings. This should not be allowed | 01/03/2022 | Object |
| i object to this or any similar dwellings being permitted to be built in the area. The ouseburn is a lively community where the arts have made a home and it is unfair to impose on that community that keeps so many people from all around the North East feel involved and cared for in a community. The building will no doubt be subject of noise pollution due to the music culture around the ouseburn involving but not limited to Tyne bar, band practice rooms and breweries whose customers and employees will be at risk due to imposing buildings. This should not be allowed | 01/03/2022 | Object |
| i object to this or any similar dwellings being permitted to be built in the area. The ouseburn is a lively community where the arts have made a home and it is unfair to impose on that community that keeps so many people from all around the North East feel involved and cared for in a community. The building will no doubt be subject of noise pollution due to the music culture around the ouseburn involving but not limited to Tyne bar, band practice rooms and breweries whose customers and employees will be at risk due to imposing buildings. This should not be allowed | 01/03/2022 | Object |
| I am writing to register my objection to planning application reference 2021/2404/01/EIA the 'Malmo Quay' development on the basis of the disproportionate size of the 18 storey tower block. | 02/03/2022 | Object |
| The development would lead to more traffic and congestion on the east quayside. | 02/03/2022 | Object |
| The development would lead to more traffic and congestion on the east quayside. | 02/03/2022 | Object |
| The development would lead to more traffic and congestion on the east quayside. | 02/03/2022 | Object |
| As a resident of Newcastle, my partner and I often visit the Quayside and Ouseburn as it is an area of the city we love very much. However one aspect of the area we are less than happy with is the traffic congestion and lack of parking which is often a problem. An example of this was on the fourth of December last year when the council closed the main road along the Quayside to allow for the market. This resulted in gridlock leading up to the Quayside and a thirty minute wait in a stationary taxi that we eventually had to abandon and walk the remaining four hundred yards. These regular closures cause unacceptable congestion in the area and push traffic to other already at capacity roads. The Malmo Quay development will only exacerbate this problem with its 70 residential dwellings and 7000sq ft. of commercial space. I personally don't think the Quayside needs any more residential development in an already over populated area, maybe a public space like a park would be more beneficial to the people of Newcastle. | 02/03/2022 | Object |
| The tower is the wrong building in the wrong location, its that simple. A wider ranging, long distance views, assesment and appraisal should be undertaken, not just the limited visualisations on offer. It is a very significant site and should be treated as such | 03/03/2022 | Object |
| The Ouseburn is a very scenic area and that is what attracts alot of people to local businesses there I feel that if planning permission were to go ahead then the some of the views would be spoiled such as the view of the bridges across the tyne from the free trade and it could ruin businesses that have been there for years | 03/03/2022 | Object |
| The scale (and subsequent overshadowing, effect on listed buidings, and impact on landscape) is totally inappropriate for the neighbourhood. If this was a developent aimed at alleviating housing pressures this might be understandable, but that is evidently not the case. Incentivize and approve developments that genuinely address the need for housing and a reduction in commutes, and retain the (limited) green space we still have -- you can do both! | 04/03/2022 | Object |
| This development is completely out of fitting on the river. It looks ugly and will distract from the industrial beauty that we have on the river. This development offers no benifits to residents of Newcastle. Only to the developers in sales. | 05/03/2022 | Object |
| I object to this application due to the design, appearance and materials propsed are not sympathetic to the Quay Side and promenade. | 07/03/2022 | Object |
| Because previous attempts to develop a tower of this site have been made does not provide support for this proposal - it detracts from it. The fact that those previous proposals failed and the number of objections this application has attracted demonstrates that a tower at this location is not wanted | 07/03/2022 | Object |
| This proposed build is troubling in a multitude of ways. Not only is it a cynical way to inject premium housing into an already crowded area; not only is it damaging to the views of so many existing buildings that are valued so heavily by the people of Newcastle; and not only is it generally unwelcome - but this build in its current state signals a hideous return to brutalism, a style that has plagued Newcastle since the 60s and only now do we seem to be gradually shedding. This building is unnecessary, not asked for by any and is visually ugly. With the sheer scale of the tower block, it’s ugliness will be impossible to ignore and will only be detrimental to our world famous skyline. Not to even mention how much of a clash this would be with the rest of the quaysides more rustic aesthetic. This development MUST be stopped. Additionally, any subsequent developments on this site must not be considered. It seems blocking something like this has become an almost annual ritual, and the council MUST recognise this is something the people they represent reject with all their might. Truly, I believe the only development the people of newcastle would be happy with is a permanent conversion into a green space perhaps with space for food vans. This particular part of the quayside thrives in summer, and this would be an excellent utilisation of the space. | 12/03/2022 | Object |
| This will be an eye sore and completely contrary to the atmosphere of the area. It needs to link sympathetically with existing buildings and history. Why do developers always try and cram to much into a small space | 13/03/2022 | Object |
| This will be an eye sore and completely contrary to the atmosphere of the area. It needs to link sympathetically with existing buildings and history. Why do developers always try and cram to much into a small space | 13/03/2022 | Object |
| The 18 storey Apartment block will impose on the surrounds and the character of the area. It will imbibe a claustrophobic sense to the surroundings, bringing the feel of the area down as many of the students blocks have in other areas. The Ouseburn developments have added to the gentrification of the area but the 18 storey sharp elongated modern form of the new development will spoil the scenic sky line. I am very fond of the area and its history. Please please don't let it happen. Kind regards Graham Davidson | 13/03/2022 | Object |
| This proposition reminds me so much of the grotesque projects of the 60’s, designed and waved through by greedy and corrupt power crazed public figures such as T. Dan Smith. It is only recently that their obvious eyesore developments have been marked for demolition. Why would anyone who loves Newcastle want to create another monstrosity, ruining a thriving and beautiful special area of the city! PLEASE THROW OUT THIS HORRENDOUS APPLICATION. Take action now. Don’t leave it to our children and grandchildren to have to fight to demolish it in years to come, at the expense of a future administration. | 14/03/2022 | Object |
| This proposition reminds me so much of the grotesque projects of the 60’s, designed and waved through by greedy and corrupt power crazed public figures such as T. Dan Smith. It is only recently that their obvious eyesore developments have been marked for demolition. Why would anyone who loves Newcastle want to create another monstrosity, ruining a thriving and beautiful special area of the city! PLEASE THROW OUT THIS HORRENDOUS APPLICATION. Take action now. Don’t leave it to our children and grandchildren to have to fight to demolish it in years to come, at the expense of a future administration. | 14/03/2022 | Object |
| This proposition reminds me so much of the grotesque projects of the 60’s, designed and waved through by greedy and corrupt power crazed public figures such as T. Dan Smith. It is only recently that their obvious eyesore developments have been marked for demolition. Why would anyone who loves Newcastle want to create another monstrosity, ruining a thriving and beautiful special area of the city! PLEASE THROW OUT THIS HORRENDOUS APPLICATION. Take action now. Don’t leave it to our children and grandchildren to have to fight to demolish it in years to come, at the expense of a future administration. | 14/03/2022 | Object |
| This proposition reminds me so much of the grotesque projects of the 60’s, designed and waved through by greedy and corrupt power crazed public figures such as T. Dan Smith. It is only recently that their obvious eyesore developments have been marked for demolition. Why would anyone who loves Newcastle want to create another monstrosity, ruining a thriving and beautiful special area of the city! PLEASE THROW OUT THIS HORRENDOUS APPLICATION. Take action now. Don’t leave it to our children and grandchildren to have to fight to demolish it in years to come, at the expense of a future administration. | 14/03/2022 | Object |
| As a local resident I object to this application on the basis that it is visually damaging to the skyline and architectural cohesiveness of the iconic Tyneside landscape. I also object to the scale of the development which will create traffic control and parking issues far in excess of what the local roads can support. The visual intrusiveness and lack of architectural sympathy of the tower block is completely unacceptable. It is just plain ugly. Absolutely no attempt has been made to complement the existing low-rise architecture both historic and contemporary. No new building on the Malmo site should dwarf or obscure the heritage sites of the Sailor's Bethal, the Ouseburn School and the Glasshouse bridge. It is staggering that this design was chosen over others that show far more architectural merit and sympathy to the existing architecture and the human scale of the Ouseburn community. The designs proposed by Michail Riches, GT3 and Mawson Kerr, were all far more suitable and would not have attracted the scale of objection currently voiced by nearly all existing Ouseburn residents. On a practical level, the traffic proposals are entirely inadequate and based on almost fantasy forecasts. Any local resident will tell you that access to the lower Quayside road via Horatio Street is a regular pinch point involving a sharp turn made difficult by existing on street parking. Trucks regularly require multi point turns at the bottom of the the Horatio Street incline which further clogs up the traffic, especially during rush hours. In addition there will be pressure on the local on street parking which is already at capacity. To provide 18 parking spaces for 62 apartments is grossly negligent and not tethered to reality. One suspects that the block has been proposed excessively high so that the developer can lop off a few stories as amelioration to obtain planning consent. But the Committee should be aware that NO tower block can ever be visually appropriate for such an historic and thriving human community. | 15/03/2022 | Object |
| I object to the proposed 18 storey residential block as I believe it is out of keeping with the local architecture, and will dominate the skyline, it is a carbuncle if ever there was one. I believe this will adversely affect local businesses, in particular the Free Trade Inn. There is no affordable housing, and it will lead to additional traffic congestion in this part of the city. | 16/03/2022 | Object |
| Ruin the view | 23/03/2022 | Object |
| Ruin the view | 23/03/2022 | Object |
| Ruin the vuew | 23/03/2022 | Object |
| I'd like to specifically comment about the 6-8 storey block that is included in this proposal for Spillers Wharf. I will assume it is built to its maximum height as that is inevitably what the developer will do. The height and massing of an 8 storey building in this location right by the rivers edge is completely out of character with the neighbouring buildings as can be seen from the attached (Existing Quayside flats.jPG). Its relationship with the existing nearby flats that are alongside the quayside (included in this image) and indeed the proposed buildings elsewhere in this planning application, that are adjacent to the river, again demonstrate how the height and massing is not in keeping with the neighbouring buildings. The adverse Daylight and Sunlight implications of this building specifically on Ouseburne Wharfe, St Lawrence Road are unnecessary if the building was constructed to a more sympathetic height similar to the surrounding riverside buildings. I therefore believe this buildings height and massing is inappropriate for this area and would like to object to the grant of a planning application in its proposed form. | 31/03/2022 | Object |
| I'm deeply concerned by this proposal. Ouseburn is a unique area of Newcastle and one that should be nurtured as much as possible and, in my view, this means ensuring a complex of this size and character is not embedded in the heart of this area. I believe if it goes ahead it will completely distort the character of the area both aesthetically and from a cultural point of view. My other concerns are the impact it will have on cycling through area and generally make it a less pleasant environment to be a pedestrian in due to the inevitable increase in traffic. It will cast a literal, as well as metaphorical, shadow over the area blocking much needed sunlight. I could go on... | 09/05/2022 | Object |
| I am writing to object to the new planning application that has been submitted on the Malmo and Spillers Quays. Although there has been a reduction in the original flat height to 10 floors, this still leaves a building far higher than any other buildings around it and completely out of keeping with this part of the Quayside. Parking on both sites is woefully inadequate. The car parking standards on which car parking numbers are assessed relative to residential units says there should be 101 spaces and the best this plan offers is 76. With other developments going on in this area the result will be more congestion for on street parking which is already at a premium. Not providing parking in adequate numbers for the 131 residential units proposed, sadly does not stop people from having cars and needing somewhere to park them. The 8 storey block on the Spillers Quay is again out of keeping with the height of buildings around it and unnecessary when viewed against the 3 storey dwellings around it. Much lower building heights would give a far better appearance when viewing down the river both on on the Malmo and Spillers sites. There seems to be no pictures of how this development would look when viewing up the river from say the Ouseburn Wharf flats, only the iconic view from the Free Trades Public House and it would be interesting to see how this would look. Ultimately, there is so much new development proposed or going on in Ouseburn, that the whole area is becoming swamped and 10 and 8 storey blocks of flats are the last thing this iconic area needs with all the overcrowding and parking issues that will follow. | 23/09/2022 | Object |
| I strongly object to this amended application. The changes made do not address and rectify the reasons stated in my own initial objection and the initial objections submitted by numerous others. All the objection points raised on the initial proposal still stand. 10 stories for the main tower block is still too high and the change of colouring of the bricks does not disguise the bland ugliness and unsuitability of this overdevelopment. Car parking provision is still totally inadequate. This proposal, on such an important site where the Ouseburn meets the Tyne, will destroy one of Newcastle’s best attractions. The views currently afforded from this promontory should be available to all not just the few able to afford the proposed river front properties. As a non resident, but frequent visitor to this area, I see this as a missed opportunity to develop a public space amenity for all, suitable as a fitting gateway to the Ouseburn and the proposed Whey Eye. I am also concerned by the hybrid nature of this application and if approved what the outline permission for the Spillar’s site might result in. Being outline only, this site has not attracted the public scrutiny afforded to Malmo Quay. This area will become an important gateway to the Wheel. My specific objections for this site are: - it ruins the waterfront. Landmark sites have open spaces such as the Embankment in London. - any thing in excess of three stories is too high. - parking and access totally inadequate. Ian Christer 93 Park Lane Prudhoe NE42 5LW | 04/10/2022 | Object |
| I objected to the original planning application for this development and I object just as much to this amended application. I am a regular visitor to the area, frequently using the shops and other amenities in the area but in addition visiting my son who lives on ouseburn wharf. The proposed 10 story block of flats continues to look ugly and out of place in the ouseburn. The complete development overshadows the unique and vibrant area that this area has become. The revised application is described as Hybrid which suggests to me once outline planning is accepted the developers can change any part which I find alarming. The revised development appears to have increased the height of dwellings further towards spillers wharf which again will overshadow a beautiful stretch off the river which is hugely popular with locals and tourists who come to appreciate the open space, tremendous and iconic views of the area. The development also appears congested with limited access and inadequate parking. Jackie Christer 93 Park Lane NE | 04/10/2022 | Object |
| Following on from the new and redesigned proposal for the development of Malmo Quay please see below my concerns and observations for opposing this development from a seriously concerned local Ouseburn resident that this development will have a direct impact upon. As before, I shall address this in two parts, firstly the aesthetics, density and size of this proposal, secondly the logistical issues and problems this project will undoubtably create for the immediate local area. Ouseburn is a landmark for arts and culture for the city of Newcastle and the sheer size of this proposal this is simply the wrong location and not in keeping for the area which will only have a negative impact on all that this local community has strived to build over the last two decades. I still wish to see the land put to good use but this will greatly impact local residents and businesses and for those of us who live in the lower apartments of Ouseburn Wharf will suffer this greatly with loss of privacy (see attached photo). I’m aware loss of a view does not count towards opposing, however this has to be considered given the area in particular and those who have invested money in settling here for the sole purpose. The issues. 1. I will be directly affected should the proposal for the eight story block of apartments be built on the site of the cycle Hub. This will allow any eastern windows above 5 storeys directly look into my living areas and impact on my privacy as a resident of Ouseburn wharf. 2. Three story developments proposed to be built on the car park of Spillers wharf will also cause loss of privacy to those who live on the first floor of Ouseburn wharf. This will also undoubtedly cause more noise pollution. 3. The new proposal still does not address the issues around long term infrastructure support around the development. We are still awaiting the development of the new wheel which will already cause huge issues with traffic and congestion for the roads that service the area. This is without the added proposal of new residential parking and access. As for the application, simply pointing out the nearest bus stops or Metro stations to the local area does not address the issue that is - new residents and people come with cars! With the recent introduction of parking meters at Spillers wharf this has already pushed commuters into parking congestion along Saint Lawrence Road and behind the Free Trade Inn causing misery for local residents. Unless this issue is addressed people will continue to double park wherever they can in the area. The council has invested money in alleviating Hadrian Road to be a safe cycle space and let’s not forget it is a nightly route for local running clubs and enthusiastic sports people. The Q3 has already been re-diverted up onto Walker Road and therefore will create more disruption for local residents eager to access public transport. 4. Ouseburn itself has been, so far relatively self-policing with minimal crime compared to other neighbourhoods within Newcastle city council borough. With new developments, more residents, more traffic and less parking opportunities will cause a rise in traffic disruption and a renewed attraction to potential vehicle crime. Routes to this location are already limited for emergency services with the only accessible road being Horatio Street. The alternative is to divert down St Lawrence Road - an already busy combination of residential parking and businesses, taking the route past the proposed aforementioned wheel once developed, and therefore placing even more pressure on local police and ambulance services. The new proposed development will undeniably cause residential disputes and ill feeling if this goes forward. Finally, one of Newcastle’s jewel in the crown recognised nationally is the iconic Free Trade Inn which is undeniably an award-winning location for visitors to the north-east as is reported in national newspapers and culture magazines. This development will utterly destroy the reputation and heavily impact the business negatively and for what? the sake of a few extra apartments. In conclusion, any proposed residential properties above 2-3 storeys will cause misery and heartbreak for those of us who have invested money into moving into ouseburn to enjoy the beauty of the local area. I really do believe that the land needs to be utilised in keeping with the reputation and national acknowledgement that Ouseburn has striven for so many years to achieve. This does not include multi-storey blocks of apartments which in turn attracts more traffic, congestion and the inevitable decline in local businesses being ringfenced by concrete. I reiterate my comments to the original proposal that should this go through the council will undoubtably lose the trust and respect of the local Ouseburn community. Regards | 05/10/2022 | Object |
| Following on from the new and redesigned proposal for the development of Malmo Quay please see below my concerns and observations for opposing this development from a seriously concerned local Ouseburn resident that this development will have a direct impact upon. As before, I shall address this in two parts, firstly the aesthetics, density and size of this proposal, secondly the logistical issues and problems this project will undoubtably create for the immediate local area. Ouseburn is a landmark for arts and culture for the city of Newcastle and the sheer size of this proposal this is simply the wrong location and not in keeping for the area which will only have a negative impact on all that this local community has strived to build over the last two decades. I still wish to see the land put to good use but this will greatly impact local residents and businesses and for those of us who live in the lower apartments of Ouseburn Wharf will suffer this greatly with loss of privacy (see attached photo). I’m aware loss of a view does not count towards opposing, however this has to be considered given the area in particular and those who have invested money in settling here for the sole purpose. The issues. 1. I will be directly affected should the proposal for the eight story block of apartments be built on the site of the cycle Hub. This will allow any eastern windows above 5 storeys directly look into my living areas and impact on my privacy as a resident of Ouseburn wharf. 2. Three story developments proposed to be built on the car park of Spillers wharf will also cause loss of privacy to those who live on the first floor of Ouseburn wharf. This will also undoubtedly cause more noise pollution. 3. The new proposal still does not address the issues around long term infrastructure support around the development. We are still awaiting the development of the new wheel which will already cause huge issues with traffic and congestion for the roads that service the area. This is without the added proposal of new residential parking and access. As for the application, simply pointing out the nearest bus stops or Metro stations to the local area does not address the issue that is - new residents and people come with cars! With the recent introduction of parking meters at Spillers wharf this has already pushed commuters into parking congestion along Saint Lawrence Road and behind the Free Trade Inn causing misery for local residents. Unless this issue is addressed people will continue to double park wherever they can in the area. The council has invested money in alleviating Hadrian Road to be a safe cycle space and let’s not forget it is a nightly route for local running clubs and enthusiastic sports people. The Q3 has already been re-diverted up onto Walker Road and therefore will create more disruption for local residents eager to access public transport. 4. Ouseburn itself has been, so far relatively self-policing with minimal crime compared to other neighbourhoods within Newcastle city council borough. With new developments, more residents, more traffic and less parking opportunities will cause a rise in traffic disruption and a renewed attraction to potential vehicle crime. Routes to this location are already limited for emergency services with the only accessible road being Horatio Street. The alternative is to divert down St Lawrence Road - an already busy combination of residential parking and businesses, taking the route past the proposed aforementioned wheel once developed, and therefore placing even more pressure on local police and ambulance services. The new proposed development will undeniably cause residential disputes and ill feeling if this goes forward. Finally, one of Newcastle’s jewel in the crown recognised nationally is the iconic Free Trade Inn which is undeniably an award-winning location for visitors to the north-east as is reported in national newspapers and culture magazines. This development will utterly destroy the reputation and heavily impact the business negatively and for what? the sake of a few extra apartments. In conclusion, any proposed residential properties above 2-3 storeys will cause misery and heartbreak for those of us who have invested money into moving into ouseburn to enjoy the beauty of the local area. I really do believe that the land needs to be utilised in keeping with the reputation and national acknowledgement that Ouseburn has striven for so many years to achieve. This does not include multi-storey blocks of apartments which in turn attracts more traffic, congestion and the inevitable decline in local businesses being ringfenced by concrete. I reiterate my comments to the original proposal that should this go through the council will undoubtably lose the trust and respect of the local Ouseburn community. Regards | 05/10/2022 | Object |
| I Object to this amended application, with the intended changes still not addressing and rectifying the main concerns that were raised by a variety of previous objections. A 10 story tower block is still too high, the height and the towers design would be out of keeping with the surrounding area and existing architecture of historical buildings within its proximity. Car parking provisions and road access is still inadequate, and the development will ruin the existing waterfront which holds high importance for the city as a tourist destination. | 05/10/2022 | Object |
| My name is Clive Reeves and I own a property at 100 Ouseburn Wharf on St Lawrence Road and I want to object to plans presented for the residential development of Malmo Quay. I believe that the proposed development is contrary to the spirit of the Ouseburn Urban Design Framework document, which seems to have a loophole in not covering the area directly on the quayside. Over the past two decades the area has been successfully regenerated in a sensitive and interesting manner, just leaving the area left to regenerate. This area should have mixed use development, to provide for both accommodation and for example a convenience store that is walkable from St Lawrence Road, but not the dense development that is proposed in the tower, or along Spillers Wharf. Too dense, too intrusive. The designs submitted look like a nod to the 1960s and despite bold decisions by the council with Byker in the past, this community should not have to wait for decades until the proposed development can be judged to be a success. It certainly isn’t at the moment. There are already issues with traffic and parking around the area of the Toffee Factory, Spillers Wharf and into St Lawrence Road, which is providing a handy location at the moment for people to park and ride for access to the city centre. This will only get worse when the clean air zone is implemented, as people have to find a way of not bringing vehicles into the zone. This proposal will compound the already considerable traffic and access problems. Newcastle Planners should know how sound travels around the river and around Ouseburn. In Ouseburn Wharf on a calm day you can hear the crowd at St James’s Park. You can hear distant music coming from the bars and even the much lamented river boat cruise as it passes our window. The new development at such density and height will cause noise and nuisance, and cause us residents to lose not only the amenity of the area, but the amenity of being able to have a window open. It’s bad enough that our homes will be overshadowed by and overlooked from the proposed wheel, without being overshadowed and overlooked by the proposed development. The proposals will also have a negative impact on the character of the nearby conservation area. This is the overview of the Generic Design Principles from the Ouseburn Plan: “There must be a legible river frontage and access to the riverside walkway along the Ouseburn, defined by public uses, access points to properties and architectural treatment. This should be provided at street level by clear and un-interrupted sight lines, as examined in the Ouseburn Parking and Accessibility Study. Active frontages and uses concentrated in new public areas to reinforce legibility and activity. This could include retail units and cafes/restaurants where commercial activities can extend into the pavements and public spaces.” I believe that the proposed development will destroy the character of the area and should be refused. | 10/10/2022 | |
| I would very much have liked to support the revied application and I appreciate the work that has gone in to the revisions. However, the developer's promise that the view from the Free Trade would be preserved has not been fulfilled with this revision. There is still too small a gap through which the river and the iconic buildings beside the river would be visible, either from inside the Free Trade or from the "viewing platform" on the street. The very special views could be maintained were the building on the end of the point to be moved to another part of the site, and one of the houses moved back a little. | 13/10/2022 | Object |
| I have looked at the revised proposals and object on the following grounds NOISE The updated modelling regarding noise impacts from events at the Tyne Bar does not include for events Outdoors at the venue. These will almost certainly have a greater impact than indoor events. If the plans are passed using this modelling it is likely that outdoor events will be no longer possible as new residents will complain of noise. The outdoor events at the Tyne Bar are an integral part of the special Ouseburn culture. PARKING There is inadequate provision for parking at both the Malmo site and the Spillers Quay site. This will inevitably cause parking problems in the surrounding area where parking problems already exist. TRAVEL PLAN There is only 1 local bus service (Q3) with bus stops for the city centre up a steep hill between 330m and 470m from the developments. (The bus stop shown on the quayside to the West at Plot 14 is no longer in use). For elderly or disabled residents this will be very difficult. DESIGN The Malmo tower block (even when lowered) is out of keeping with the surroundings. The tall blocks proposed on Spillers Quay are too high and of an inferior design. Views of the riverside from the Quayside and St Lawrence are spoilt. The whole development is a prime example of “over-massing” and does nothing to enhance the area. FINANCE The developers say that they need the tower block to make the development profitable. They also say they can’t have any affordable housing as it isn’t profitable. The Planning system is not there to facilitate the profitability of any developer, it is there to ensure developments are in the right place with the right design. This development clearly isn’t. Reject this application. | 17/10/2022 | Object |
| It is clear to the Trust that as with the first scheme submission, the new design still faces considerable negative feeling among the local community. We have sought to capture here the points that can be considered objective considerations in planning terms. The most evident change to the scheme, to reduce the tower or tall building by 8 storeys, addressing a large proportion of the criticism of it, is welcomed by the Trust. While still tall at 10 storeys, its height and massing now sit less uncomfortably in its surroundings. It now relates a little better to the Ouseburn instead of merely as a Quayside building. Additional animation of its northern façade and the use of a brick material pallet that references the historic buildings of the area goes some way to alleviating the sense of bulk of a large building like this. It is still not felt by the Trust to merit the prominent site, amounting very much to a block of flats rather than a statement building in a key location at the confluence of the rivers, that contains accommodation. While the scale doesn’t radically disrupt the character of the site and the gorge, the design is still felt to be underwhelming. The reduction in its height does not change sight lines from largely lower viewing points, but it is no longer felt to dominate the skyline or undermine key buildings, bridges or the river now. The reduction in height naturally reduces the housing numbers overall on the Malmo site and redresses the balance such that a greater proportion now sit on the larger Spillers site. While components have been fleshed out with more detail in the outline component of the hybrid scheme on the Spillers site, the Trust retains concern for the notion of the hybrid application in the sense that its overall approval would consist of the approval of unknowns for the Spillers site. We would still like to see more detail of what is to be developed on the Spillers site in order to make an assessment of whether the overall scheme is acceptable and embodies the principle of good place design. There also remains a profound concern about the loss of the CycleHub building, and the interdependent uses contained within it such as the large space used for community events, a replacement for which is not proposed in the plans. The Trust is keen to support the Hub operation to secure an outcome that would work for their continued successful and diverse operation. Finally in respect of transport, the Trust is keen to see a commitment to the provision of parking for Malmo occupants until the parking barn outlined for Spillers is built. This includes investment and encouragement for more sustainable transport modes such as electric car hire, electric bike hire, cold stores for shopping deliveries etc. each to showcase the opportunity for reduced car dependency for potential residents. | 17/10/2022 | Object |
| I again object to every part of this application especially as the Spillers Quay is only outline and therefore the whole cannot realistically be considered. An opportunity was missed not including these sites in the Ouseburn Regeneration Plan or the Ouseburn Conservation Area as it is obviously a major part of the Ouseburn area. Firstly it was in the initial application it was stated that the land on Malmo Quay is of no intrinsic value yet for this development to proceed the Council has spent several million pounds of taxpayer’s money to move the main sewer, associated pumping station, gas and other parts of the infrastructure to prepare the site to make it profitable for the developers. Will the cost of this site preparation work be repaid to the Council by the developers in the profit they hope to generate from the development? It could then be used to prepare other brown field sites, of which there are many in the city, which were more appropriate for development than this one. The tower block is still in contravention of the Newcastle SPD on Tall Buildings as it is significantly taller than any landmark structures, of which there are several, in the vicinity. The 8 storey building on the site of the current Cycle Hub, which in itself has become a landmark, is such that the Ouseburn may as well be put in a culvert as the feature will be totally lost within the buildings from the city viewpoints! The Tyne Gorge Study 2003 also shows high rise developments such as these would cause loss of the gorge as a feature. The height of the tower will still cast shadow for most of the day, particularly in the winter months, over residences and businesses in the Ouseburn Conservation area to the north of it in the Ouseburn Valley where a vibrant community has been generated over a number of years. Several small businesses depend on outdoor seating for their viability and casting them into shadow will decrease footfall and lead to loss of jobs in the vicinity. I feel this development will be detrimental to this community asset. In the proposed building itself the size of the apartments are of concern. Once again there is little consideration of the new 'working from home' society we now live in and in my view most apartments are unsuitable for this lifestyle. There is insufficient outside space for recreation and a lack of biodiversity. There is no provision for affordable housing. Although the development is for rent, it will be high end rental for professionals! There are too few parking spaces for the size and nature of the development and for the type of tenant they are hoping to attract. The outline nature of the Spillers Quay development means the promised extra parking may never come to fruition. The electric car charging points are too few and of poor quality, a full charge would take over 30 hours. Lack of public transport is a real issue; it is insufficient for the current inhabitants of the area. To say the metro at Byker is convenient when it is so far away and up a steep incline is ridiculous. The nearest bus stops are almost half a mile away and again up a steep hill - it is a gorge! There are no shops nearby so a car would almost be a necessity. Losing the current cycle hub would be a real loss for many people who use it for recreation, the building itself has become a real feature on the riverside and what is proposed is unsuitable. The noise assessments have not been carried out correctly. The main source of 'noise' in the area would be the bands playing at The Tyne Bar. This music is provided free and is an integral part of the community on the Ouseburn and has been for many years. Any complaint about this would end this community asset forever and this cannot be allowed to happen. Lip service is paid in the plan to the population as a whole being able to enjoy the views of the Tyne river from this area as the have been able to for decades and is well demonstrated in the warmer months when hundreds of people come to the area to enjoy the meeting places in the area, i.e. The Tyne Bar, The Free Trade and The Cycle Hub etc., all of which will be negatively affected by these proposals. There is an opportunity, which must not be missed, to provide an area of benefit to all the community. The lack of any green space along the river is noticeable and allowing this site, at least on the west side of the Ouseburn, to be a green space would stop the whole quayside being built up and give the biodiversity that is much needed. An area of beauty should be developed as a gateway to the Ouseburn Conservation area for the benefit of all! | 17/10/2022 | Object |
| Hi, I live in Citipeak apartments and I am objecting to this proposal. The building design does not fit wit the surrounding area, neither the modern buildings nor the historic Ouseburn buildings. The design lacks adequate parking for the proposed tenants, something that is already a problem in the area. This dense a proposal will severely overload local roads which already struggle to deal with the level of traffic, bikes, and pedestrians. the public transport links are already stretched and would not be able to cope with the extra planned housing, particularly the tower. | 17/10/2022 | Object |
| The design still dominates the Ouseburn end of the quayside by virtue of its massing and is profoundly disappointing visually - Newcastle simply deserves something more imaginative than this, the system itself lets us down even to allow such an end-product to be seriously considered. Please also receive in addition to these few words above, direct objections to: 1) the continued pursuit of a Hybrid application: the outcome can only be in the longterm favour of the developer 2) the inclusion of all the Environmental Statement's visual renders as INDIVIDUAL PAGES - what motive other than obfuscation contributing to the longterm favour of the developer... Cynical, cynical | 17/10/2022 | Object |
| None of the real problems have been addressed. This will congest an area know for drinking, likely creating constant problems for the police. The lack of address an iconic view of Newcastle that a serious tourist attraction. Would be great if the council thought about people of Newcastle instead of money. | 18/10/2022 | Object |
| The size and massing of this development is still not apppropriate. The view from the Tyne Bridge shows how much is stands out from the surround topography and buildings. This does not add any quality or character to the area. The area forms part of the iconic coast to coast cycle route and Hadrians Way walking route as well as a local connection between Ouseburn and the quayside. This development is likely to lead to significant levels of increased traffic along with on street parking that increases the risks for pedestrians and cyclists in this area. This develop is not approrpriate for the site or worthy in its current form. | 18/10/2022 | Object |
| As a frequent user of the Ouseburn ward, I find the proposal of a 10-storey tower block on the site of Malmo Quay not in-keeping with the Ouseburn area and its heritage. The scale of the tower, even after being 'scaled down' from the previous proposal, adversely affects the skyline and character throughout the entirety of the Ouseburn, Quayside and into the East End wards. Even reduced in height, its sheer size appears unjustifiable, given the current building height line within the Ouseburn ward. Despite the apparent merits of its environmental design, the tower adds no value in terms of its exterior design. It is hard to describe in as anything other than an eye sore, although I will reserve that title for the proposed neighbouring ‘wheel’. My prime concern is for the traffic and infrastructure. The existing low levels of traffic in the area encourage pedestrians into the area, walking between myriad of independent drinking and dining establishments in the area. The increased traffic brought about from the new residents and their vehicles will lead to potential accidents between pedestrians and motor vehicles and discourage this type of usage in the ward. Couple with limited public transport links to the site, car usage in the area will increase drastically. With the historical road layout and existing buildings and businesses, the new development would exceed the traffic capacity of the existing infrastructure. The increased need for car access by any prospective new residents would also effect neighbouring areas of the Ouseburn and Quayside areas adversely. With insufficient space to adequately provide parking for the proposed residential units, new residents would inevitably park in nearby streets throughout the ward, turning the quiet streets into an extension of a parking lot. The reason for the Ouseburn's popularity is the fact it offers something different from a city-centre ambiance; the reclaimed former industrial buildings, the quiet low-rise street scene - exceeded only by the uniquely dramatic historical chimneys - are why people are drawn to the area. Ultimately, the long-standing, locally-owned, independent businesses in the area that have almost completely independently brought about the positive changes within the Ouseburn over that past two decades would not benefit from this proposal. As a former Town Planning master’s graduate, I am not adverse to change and fully appreciate the need to meet new housing demands in the city, as well the desire to transform brownfield sites. However, the negatives of this proposal far outweigh the positives and endanger what – up to this point - has been a successful revitalisation of the Ouseburn ward. | 19/10/2022 | Object |
| Although I consider the Malmo 10-story building to be a much better proposition than the previous I am confused. They stated last time they needed 18 stories to be viable commercially... If so where are they going to make up the loss of 8 levels of apartments? in Spillers? The rest of the application is far too vague and worrying. Up to 8 stories is completely out of place on the river front. The roads down to spillers cant take more traffic, and Newcastle cant lose more parking. Ouseburn is considered one of the best areas for community in the UK, this level of development will completely spoil it. Please consider making these areas usable public spaces, a park, seating, community area. | 20/10/2022 | Object |
| I would like to echo comments of other objectors to this proposal; - impacting on culture of area due to potential noise complaints against already established outdoor music from place like Tyne Bar - Insufficient parking, creating trickle-down negative imapct for surrounding areas, and lack of appropriate public transport alternatives - design out of keeping with rest of area, impacting on appeal of local amenities (i.e. views from local bars etc.), potentially impacting trade. Loss of amenities could lead to devaluaing of exisitng local properties through these losses (research has shown) Please reject | 25/10/2022 | Object |
| I'd like to add my objection to the proposal. The detailed planning application for the Malmo site remains a shockingly poor development for this site and at this iconic point on the bend of the river. The size of the tower development, even at the reduced ten storeys, remains ugly and intrusive in design. This is a key city viewpoint, visible for miles and to clutter it with a beige design of such poor quality would be an awful decision. To build such a tall building in the relatively small space of Malmo Quay is not only out of keeping with the area but will be utterly destructive of the iconic Tyneside views afforded from the hill that the Free Trade pub sits on, and which have rightly become nationally famous, a feature of which Newcastle should be justifiably proud and which developers should not be allowed to wantonly destroy. I do not feel the developers have sufficiently addressed their commitment to maintaining traditional sightlines in this proposal - any tower of any size built here will simply dominate the skyline. The primary objection to the Malmo proposal is on its size, appearance and density. I am also very concerned about the impact of the development on local business - in particular the Tyne Bar which has added considerably to the character and attraction of the Ouseburn area, in part creating the kind of environment that attracts so many visitors with live, open - air music. That this should be in any way threatened by the creation of a new density of residency in such close proximity is unfair and unwelcome. The density of residency created by Malmo and Spillers is also hugely concerning in term of its impact on access, parking and transport which are already problematical in this area, and which have not been adequately addressed in this proposal which will simply add to the problem. In addition, my main objection to this hybrid proposal is that the plans for Spillers remain, in outline - and as such look just disappoint visually, unnecessarily dense and amount to an effective blocking off of current access and views of the river, enjoyed by thousands all year round. But how on earth can we make an assessment of the quality and impact of the proposal if it remains in outline only? Spillers is just as important a development upon which to comment upon as Malmo given its key location in the city. It should be considered separately from Malmo. It feels unacceptable to do otherwise as residents are unable to assess the full impact on the basis of an outline only. Finally, I would appeal to Councilors as guardians of what is special about the city - fully understanding that decisions are made to unlock economic potential. Some cities have areas that are just unique and special to their locality. This area of the Quayside/Ouseburn is one of them and has been made so largely thanks to small enterprises, pubs, cafes, venues that have found homes in the area. The landscape and ecology are also key to this. I can't think of many other cities in the UK that have what Newcastle has in Ouseburn. But it's fragile - and once it's gone, due to over -density, inappropriate development, etc., then it's gone for good. Please don't let that happen here. I would have preferred that more opportunity be given to the development of Malmo and Spillers as shared riverside leisure sites for the city - the Cycle Hub shows exactly how the area could have been developed and it is a joy to see families using the area all week through as a starting point for bike rides, walks along the river, access to Hadrian's path and into Ouseburn. If we have to lose that shared opportunity for flats and towers, please think again - not this, not this design, not this density. Please let's see more than an outline for Spillers. And please - no tower blocks imposed on an area where they will appear so out of place and so intrusive. | 25/10/2022 | Object |
| I'd like to add my objection to the proposal. The detailed planning application for the Malmo site remains a shockingly poor development for this site and at this iconic point on the bend of the river. The size of the tower development, even at the reduced ten storeys, remains ugly and intrusive in design. This is a key city viewpoint, visible for miles and to clutter it with a beige design of such poor quality would be an awful decision. To build such a tall building in the relatively small space of Malmo Quay is not only out of keeping with the area but will be utterly destructive of the iconic Tyneside views afforded from the hill that the Free Trade pub sits on, and which have rightly become nationally famous, a feature of which Newcastle should be justifiably proud and which developers should not be allowed to wantonly destroy. I do not feel the developers have sufficiently addressed their commitment to maintaining traditional sightlines in this proposal - any tower of any size built here will simply dominate the skyline. The primary objection to the Malmo proposal is on its size, appearance and density. I am also very concerned about the impact of the development on local business - in particular the Tyne Bar which has added considerably to the character and attraction of the Ouseburn area, in part creating the kind of environment that attracts so many visitors with live, open - air music. That this should be in any way threatened by the creation of a new density of residency in such close proximity is unfair and unwelcome. The density of residency created by Malmo and Spillers is also hugely concerning in term of its impact on access, parking and transport which are already problematical in this area, and which have not been adequately addressed in this proposal which will simply add to the problem. In addition, my main objection to this hybrid proposal is that the plans for Spillers remain, in outline - and as such look just disappoint visually, unnecessarily dense and amount to an effective blocking off of current access and views of the river, enjoyed by thousands all year round. But how on earth can we make an assessment of the quality and impact of the proposal if it remains in outline only? Spillers is just as important a development upon which to comment upon as Malmo given its key location in the city. It should be considered separately from Malmo. It feels unacceptable to do otherwise as residents are unable to assess the full impact on the basis of an outline only. Finally, I would appeal to Councilors as guardians of what is special about the city - fully understanding that decisions are made to unlock economic potential. Some cities have areas that are just unique and special to their locality. This area of the Quayside/Ouseburn is one of them and has been made so largely thanks to small enterprises, pubs, cafes, venues that have found homes in the area. The landscape and ecology are also key to this. I can't think of many other cities in the UK that have what Newcastle has in Ouseburn. But it's fragile - and once it's gone, due to over -density, inappropriate development, etc., then it's gone for good. Please don't let that happen here. I would have preferred that more opportunity be given to the development of Malmo and Spillers as shared riverside leisure sites for the city - the Cycle Hub shows exactly how the area could have been developed and it is a joy to see families using the area all week through as a starting point for bike rides, walks along the river, access to Hadrian's path and into Ouseburn. If we have to lose that shared opportunity for flats and towers, please think again - not this, not this design, not this density. Please let's see more than an outline for Spillers. And please - no tower blocks imposed on an area where they will appear so out of place and so intrusive. | 25/10/2022 | Object |
| Hello, I am writing to object to application 2021/2404/01/EIA. This has been recently amended in a drastic way - the planning application now includes an additional 73 homes where the current cycle hub is and also additional structures - and yet the application has been kept on an existing one that this was not included in - the only part of the application that should have changed should be the Malmo key part. I am writing to you to split these applications as this is unclear and unjust. Looking at the scale and the horrendous design and infrastructure impact of the additional 73 homes this should not be included in an existing application. The Malmo application should just be on its own with the reduced height regards the tower block (yes the block went down a few stories so let us feedback on these changes as they were - NOT with 73 new homes and an increased infrastructure crisis). The application also includes all of the historic feedback which is even more unclear! This is more conservative party corruption trying to push through unjust additional plans and not letting people vote on what is existing – it is also impossible to review everything on this site properly as you have left all the old comments on here. My comments on the proposal of the 10 story tower block are listed below, I refuse to be drawn on the other design as it should be retracted and stand on its own!:: As an Ouseburn resident I am aware that pieces of land in this area are high in value due to their location (I live in one of these places) – however in this circumstance the proposal is completely out of line with the surrounding area and has fundamental flaws regarding infrastructure and the detrimental affect that this development would cause to the area compared to the ones that have gone before it. My key concerns are stated below: • The proposal outlines plans to a 10 story tower block on an extremely small piece of a land – the infrastructure to get to this piece of land is already very poor – the roads are tight and following the development at Spillers Quay and the proposed construction on the Quay timber site congestion from traffic is already set to spiral with there already not enough parking spaces for those houses (An assumption that people that spend 300K+ on a new home will not drive a car is not factual). When the ‘Whey aye’ is built this will again massively increase the demands on this area – there is only a single road which is hard to get to and this is an area with high pedestrian footfall increasing the risk for people that are walking through the area and also to our children when they are out playing. • The proposal to build a 10 story tower block in a conservation area – The Ouseburn valley is an area that glistens with natural beauty, volunteers regular make sure that it is clean and clear of rubbish and it is a culture hub for the east end of town with a thriving hospitality sector and landmarks like the Ouseburn farm, seven stories and brilliant pubs, it is also curtailed by the bridges. The building of an 10 story tower block in this area will totally destroy the regeneration program and the natural beauty of the area. Newcastle is already littered with large buildings which were built in previous generations and that now linger on the landscape as eyesores – there is absolutely no reason to build this tower block other than to make money as it offers absolutely nothing to the area – The fact that housing England will need to spend £1,000,000+ just to make the land buildable stinks of corruption from the planning board – there are multiple places this money could be spent more effectively and where houses could be built straight away – this is tax payers money and it should not be spent like this. The Malings, Spillers and future Quay Timber developments have all been meticulously planned and look amazing, fitting in with the area, this has not been and will destroy the Ouseburn valley from all angles. It is totally out of keeping with the area and anyone that approves this needs to hang their head in shame. • The impact of building an 10 story tower block to residents and local business areas – This building will lead to reduced privacy in my home as well as loss of light – the building is not in keeping with any of the levels that are on the quayside close to this (approx 4 story’s) and does not fit in with the area. The development will also make local businesses less desirable – for example the Hotel Du vin – I would not want to go to a high end hotel that had what essentially looks like a council tower block built next to it. As well as for businesses this is also detrimental to the price of my house. Finally, I have a couple questions to raise based on the above points: 1) Have Newcastle City Council considered spending the 1 million+ pounds that they would need to use to change the area into a place of natural beauty with additional opportunities for new local businesses? The site could house a park and new shops or restaurants for example and a 3 or 4 story block of flats, making the area more desirable (Igloo stated that the tower block would be a landmark for the East end of town which again is not a reality, this could be). 2) Where have the council come to the conclusion that people no longer have cars or are reducing car ownership? I would like to see some evidence of this as to add the risk of this potential increase to the parking footprint in an extremely condensed area is not acceptable (Igloo said in open day that people would get the bus or if they had a car they would park in the town centre?.................). 3) Who came up with the notion that a 10 story tower block in a conservation area could be a landmark for the east end of the city? Was this done via panelling local residents? Or is this an idea formed by an individual looking to profit from this. I hope you will consider these points and those raised by others when reviewing this application, in a time when all that we see is corruption on the television from our government and councils, if the plans are to go ahead as they are its pretty evident that the planning board operate in a similar vain, there is absolutely no reason why these plans should go ahead in their current form – it is purely for money and the fact that Homes England has to invest first to actually build this for me is the hardest part to stomach. I am sure a more suitable and beneficial development for the area could be found for this piece of land which would not be so objectionable and that would be a real landmark that our city could be proud of. Thanks, Michael | 26/10/2022 | Object |
| Hello, I am writing to object to application 2021/2404/01/EIA. This has been recently amended in a drastic way - the planning application now includes an additional 73 homes where the current cycle hub is and also additional structures - and yet the application has been kept on an existing one that this was not included in - the only part of the application that should have changed should be the Malmo key part. I am writing to you to split these applications as this is unclear and unjust. Looking at the scale and the horrendous design and infrastructure impact of the additional 73 homes this should not be included in an existing application. The Malmo application should just be on its own with the reduced height regards the tower block (yes the block went down a few stories so let us feedback on these changes as they were - NOT with 73 new homes and an increased infrastructure crisis). The application also includes all of the historic feedback which is even more unclear! This is more conservative party corruption trying to push through unjust additional plans and not letting people vote on what is existing – it is also impossible to review everything on this site properly as you have left all the old comments on here. My comments on the proposal of the 10 story tower block are listed below, I refuse to be drawn on the other design as it should be retracted and stand on its own!:: As an Ouseburn resident I am aware that pieces of land in this area are high in value due to their location (I live in one of these places) – however in this circumstance the proposal is completely out of line with the surrounding area and has fundamental flaws regarding infrastructure and the detrimental affect that this development would cause to the area compared to the ones that have gone before it. My key concerns are stated below: • The proposal outlines plans to a 10 story tower block on an extremely small piece of a land – the infrastructure to get to this piece of land is already very poor – the roads are tight and following the development at Spillers Quay and the proposed construction on the Quay timber site congestion from traffic is already set to spiral with there already not enough parking spaces for those houses (An assumption that people that spend 300K+ on a new home will not drive a car is not factual). When the ‘Whey aye’ is built this will again massively increase the demands on this area – there is only a single road which is hard to get to and this is an area with high pedestrian footfall increasing the risk for people that are walking through the area and also to our children when they are out playing. • The proposal to build a 10 story tower block in a conservation area – The Ouseburn valley is an area that glistens with natural beauty, volunteers regular make sure that it is clean and clear of rubbish and it is a culture hub for the east end of town with a thriving hospitality sector and landmarks like the Ouseburn farm, seven stories and brilliant pubs, it is also curtailed by the bridges. The building of an 10 story tower block in this area will totally destroy the regeneration program and the natural beauty of the area. Newcastle is already littered with large buildings which were built in previous generations and that now linger on the landscape as eyesores – there is absolutely no reason to build this tower block other than to make money as it offers absolutely nothing to the area – The fact that housing England will need to spend £1,000,000+ just to make the land buildable stinks of corruption from the planning board – there are multiple places this money could be spent more effectively and where houses could be built straight away – this is tax payers money and it should not be spent like this. The Malings, Spillers and future Quay Timber developments have all been meticulously planned and look amazing, fitting in with the area, this has not been and will destroy the Ouseburn valley from all angles. It is totally out of keeping with the area and anyone that approves this needs to hang their head in shame. • The impact of building an 10 story tower block to residents and local business areas – This building will lead to reduced privacy in my home as well as loss of light – the building is not in keeping with any of the levels that are on the quayside close to this (approx 4 story’s) and does not fit in with the area. The development will also make local businesses less desirable – for example the Hotel Du vin – I would not want to go to a high end hotel that had what essentially looks like a council tower block built next to it. As well as for businesses this is also detrimental to the price of my house. Finally, I have a couple questions to raise based on the above points: 1) Have Newcastle City Council considered spending the 1 million+ pounds that they would need to use to change the area into a place of natural beauty with additional opportunities for new local businesses? The site could house a park and new shops or restaurants for example and a 3 or 4 story block of flats, making the area more desirable (Igloo stated that the tower block would be a landmark for the East end of town which again is not a reality, this could be). 2) Where have the council come to the conclusion that people no longer have cars or are reducing car ownership? I would like to see some evidence of this as to add the risk of this potential increase to the parking footprint in an extremely condensed area is not acceptable (Igloo said in open day that people would get the bus or if they had a car they would park in the town centre?.................). 3) Who came up with the notion that a 10 story tower block in a conservation area could be a landmark for the east end of the city? Was this done via panelling local residents? Or is this an idea formed by an individual looking to profit from this. I hope you will consider these points and those raised by others when reviewing this application, in a time when all that we see is corruption on the television from our government and councils, if the plans are to go ahead as they are its pretty evident that the planning board operate in a similar vain, there is absolutely no reason why these plans should go ahead in their current form – it is purely for money and the fact that Homes England has to invest first to actually build this for me is the hardest part to stomach. I am sure a more suitable and beneficial development for the area could be found for this piece of land which would not be so objectionable and that would be a real landmark that our city could be proud of. Thanks, Michael | 26/10/2022 | Object |
| Hello, I am writing to object to application 2021/2404/01/EIA. This has been recently amended in a drastic way - the planning application now includes an additional 73 homes where the current cycle hub is and also additional structures - and yet the application has been kept on an existing one that this was not included in - the only part of the application that should have changed should be the Malmo key part. I am writing to you to split these applications as this is unclear and unjust. Looking at the scale and the horrendous design and infrastructure impact of the additional 73 homes this should not be included in an existing application. The Malmo application should just be on its own with the reduced height regards the tower block (yes the block went down a few stories so let us feedback on these changes as they were - NOT with 73 new homes and an increased infrastructure crisis). The application also includes all of the historic feedback which is even more unclear! This is more conservative party corruption trying to push through unjust additional plans and not letting people vote on what is existing – it is also impossible to review everything on this site properly as you have left all the old comments on here. My comments on the proposal of the 10 story tower block are listed below, I refuse to be drawn on the other design as it should be retracted and stand on its own!:: As an Ouseburn resident I am aware that pieces of land in this area are high in value due to their location (I live in one of these places) – however in this circumstance the proposal is completely out of line with the surrounding area and has fundamental flaws regarding infrastructure and the detrimental affect that this development would cause to the area compared to the ones that have gone before it. My key concerns are stated below: • The proposal outlines plans to a 10 story tower block on an extremely small piece of a land – the infrastructure to get to this piece of land is already very poor – the roads are tight and following the development at Spillers Quay and the proposed construction on the Quay timber site congestion from traffic is already set to spiral with there already not enough parking spaces for those houses (An assumption that people that spend 300K+ on a new home will not drive a car is not factual). When the ‘Whey aye’ is built this will again massively increase the demands on this area – there is only a single road which is hard to get to and this is an area with high pedestrian footfall increasing the risk for people that are walking through the area and also to our children when they are out playing. • The proposal to build a 10 story tower block in a conservation area – The Ouseburn valley is an area that glistens with natural beauty, volunteers regular make sure that it is clean and clear of rubbish and it is a culture hub for the east end of town with a thriving hospitality sector and landmarks like the Ouseburn farm, seven stories and brilliant pubs, it is also curtailed by the bridges. The building of an 10 story tower block in this area will totally destroy the regeneration program and the natural beauty of the area. Newcastle is already littered with large buildings which were built in previous generations and that now linger on the landscape as eyesores – there is absolutely no reason to build this tower block other than to make money as it offers absolutely nothing to the area – The fact that housing England will need to spend £1,000,000+ just to make the land buildable stinks of corruption from the planning board – there are multiple places this money could be spent more effectively and where houses could be built straight away – this is tax payers money and it should not be spent like this. The Malings, Spillers and future Quay Timber developments have all been meticulously planned and look amazing, fitting in with the area, this has not been and will destroy the Ouseburn valley from all angles. It is totally out of keeping with the area and anyone that approves this needs to hang their head in shame. • The impact of building an 10 story tower block to residents and local business areas – This building will lead to reduced privacy in my home as well as loss of light – the building is not in keeping with any of the levels that are on the quayside close to this (approx 4 story’s) and does not fit in with the area. The development will also make local businesses less desirable – for example the Hotel Du vin – I would not want to go to a high end hotel that had what essentially looks like a council tower block built next to it. As well as for businesses this is also detrimental to the price of my house. Finally, I have a couple questions to raise based on the above points: 1) Have Newcastle City Council considered spending the 1 million+ pounds that they would need to use to change the area into a place of natural beauty with additional opportunities for new local businesses? The site could house a park and new shops or restaurants for example and a 3 or 4 story block of flats, making the area more desirable (Igloo stated that the tower block would be a landmark for the East end of town which again is not a reality, this could be). 2) Where have the council come to the conclusion that people no longer have cars or are reducing car ownership? I would like to see some evidence of this as to add the risk of this potential increase to the parking footprint in an extremely condensed area is not acceptable (Igloo said in open day that people would get the bus or if they had a car they would park in the town centre?.................). 3) Who came up with the notion that a 10 story tower block in a conservation area could be a landmark for the east end of the city? Was this done via panelling local residents? Or is this an idea formed by an individual looking to profit from this. I hope you will consider these points and those raised by others when reviewing this application, in a time when all that we see is corruption on the television from our government and councils, if the plans are to go ahead as they are its pretty evident that the planning board operate in a similar vain, there is absolutely no reason why these plans should go ahead in their current form – it is purely for money and the fact that Homes England has to invest first to actually build this for me is the hardest part to stomach. I am sure a more suitable and beneficial development for the area could be found for this piece of land which would not be so objectionable and that would be a real landmark that our city could be proud of. Thanks, Michael | 26/10/2022 | Object |
| Objection to Hybrid application at Spillers Quay, REF: 2021/2404//01/EIA I would like to strongly object, due to the following reasons: Lack of affordable housing and public access to green spaces - This development does nothing to address the dire need for affordable housing in Newcastle, and instead serves to further gentrify the area, which is being steadily being oversaturated with luxury housing developments. These developments are eating into a much-loved local area and are turning a public space accessible to be enjoyed by all into a residential space, that only the privileged few will benefit from. During the pandemic access to green spaces was illustrated as being of paramount importance, and by limiting this public space this proposal would negatively impact the wider community. Traffic and impacts of - The additional housing proposed here will result in a significant increase in traffic, where parking and traffic is already an issue on busy congested roads. There is simply not the infrastructure to accommodate this proposal. The lack of public transport is a real issue; to say the metro at Byker is convenient is just not true. The nearest bus stops are almost half a mile away and up a steep hill, meaning most residents will need a car. The council has done some great work to restrict traffic, but this proposal is completely at odds with that thread of working. Additionally, to build this proposal in the midst of a nationally recognised and much used cycle route is madness. In a time when we are being encouraged to think about our health and wellbeing, as well as to think about travelling in a more environmentally conscious way, cycling infrastructure should be prioritised. This proposal seeks to do the opposite. The development will endanger the many cyclists that use the national cycle route, further pushing people to use their cars, which again is at odds of the council goals. Cultural importance of the Ouseburn - Over the last 20-30 years the Ouseburn has grown and developed into the special place it is now, a little oasis on the outskirts of the city centre, which is rightly of cultural importance and a source of local pride to so many. This development takes another leap closer to turning the Ouseburn from the loved and vital cultural hub it is now to a residential middle-class property hot spot. The proposal will completely dominate everything that currently stands on the banks of the Ouseburn and the surrounding areas. | 26/10/2022 | Object |
| Chantal Ward-Mercer of 32 The Oval, Walker, Newcastle NE6 3LH responding to MALMO QUAY development proposal. 2021/2404/01/EIA I am writing to you once again concerning the MALMO Quay development and its potentially devastating impacts to the local area. Whilst I’m aware the design has been altered to be shorter since I last wrote to you, all of my original concerns still stand- building a shorter tower block is still building a tower block. Last time I wrote to you, I spoke of the problem of overshadowing which is still a massive concern with a 10 storey building. This building still intends to overshadow all of its surrounding buildings and will destroy the environment at the same time. The projected images show that the building will still stick out like a sore thumb and ruin all scenic value in the area for both residents and passers-by. Additionally there is a lack of infrastructure to support a building/buildings of this scale on the ground. As a Walker resident I commute through the roads surrounding the development 5 days a week and frequently travel at other times, I can only see this as a massive hazard to productivity and not for any good reason. The tower block and surrounding “town houses” will house a lot of occupants, there is already continually high traffic along city road/walker road as it is, the buses that run along this road are notoriously late, to add an additional 56 apartments and who knows how many people all bringing cars and trying to park in the area seem a ludicrous suggestion, there simply isn’t enough space. I wrote last time about the death of a man after a fatal crash on this stretch of road. Walking home just last night I saw another car wrecked on the side of the road after a crash, this problem will only get worse with the addition of more people and the construction site for this eyesore tower block that MALMO proposes. With most of the rest of this area already built up with similar housing there is absolutely no need for this building, as I’m aware that most of these other blocks are not full and some have not even reached completion. What is the rush to build more empty tower blocks? Furthermore, the effects of a development of this size are not just in the dangerously high levels of traffic it will create. I asked in my last letter “how will this building affect access to the Quayside for the general population?” At the moment people are free to walk along the Quayside and it is easy to access via transport, it seems obvious that putting a gigantic building in the middle of an open space will slow traffic and cause problems with access to the river. They may own a small patch of land, but that doesn’t mean they should have control over the area as a whole. This design shows no reverence to the existing topography of the surrounding area, which makes sense as its function has no necessity in the area. The other buildings surrounding this development will be dwarfed in comparison and it will most certainly block light to the surrounding area. The construction of this MALMO tower block will also hurt the Ouseburn environment. There is a lot of wildlife still around this area and it seems fairly obvious that construction alone, never mind the excessive pollution this building will create will ultimately have a devastating ecological effect. Amongst other animals we currently have swans that nest here each year and swim right up the river to the Tyne, swans are protected as wild birds under the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act and it is illegal to kill them, additionally they are now a much loved part of the local community and it is well known fact that conserving biodiversity in urban landscapes is integral for community wellbeing. Writing only last year the United Nations published the The IPBES Global Assessment Report showing nature’s “unprecedented” decline: “Ecosystems, species, wild populations, local varieties and breeds of domesticated plants and animals are shrinking, deteriorating or vanishing. The essential, interconnected web of life on Earth is getting smaller and increasingly frayed”... “This loss is a direct result of human activity and constitutes a direct threat to human well-being in all regions of the world.” Prof Settelle of the United Nations. I don’t see that Newcastle City Council should be trying to further the eradication of wildlife at a time like this and for such a needless development. Tenants in a lot of the tower blocks/apartment complexes built over the last 10 years in the Ouseburn regularly raise noise complaints about the pre existing establishments in the area, a building site and a load of new tenants will only serve to increase noise pollution in the area, negatively affecting residents, visitors and wildlife. Tower blocks have proven effects on anti-social behaviour escalation and crime rates. Using the data correlated on crimerate.co.uk/north-east between September 2019 and August 2022 we can see that the postcode area for NE6 1AP (the area suggested for development) is reasonably low at present when compared with other local areas which have new build accommodation or tower blocks built on them. (CrimeRate.co.uk is a data analysis and GIS project dedicated to uncovering crime trends in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. crimrate.co.uk aggregate open police force data, social media signals and file FOI requests with local police departments to build the most complete catalogue of crime and safety information in the region.) For example the flats up and down shields road at NE61EJ (which it should be noted are within spitting distance of the police station itself), the reasonably new blocks of flats further down the quayside at Ne12BH “Dream Apartments” where there is an alarming amount of violent and sexual offences, the new build housing in Byker at NE62UL which has high levels of antisocial behaviour and the Marlay Hall block of flats in Walker NE63XE all show much greater levels of crime than their surrounding areas. You can see the direct link between the placement of tower blocks and new build housing and the crime rate surging in these overcrowded areas. It is worth noting that these housing complexes range from 2 storey to 15 storeys, are built in different styles, range in age and all provide the same issue, meaning the reduction in floors of this development will not stop the problem. The examples I have used here are all within a 2 mile radius of the proposed site, there is no evidence to suggest that this new build tower block would be any different than its preexisting counterparts. Please can the City Council learn from past mistakes? I live a 15 minute walk from the proposed site and work 2 minutes away, I can only see negative impacts from this proposed building. I don’t see any added value for the local community and if anything only see the MALMO Quay development as a threat ecologically, socially and with regards to public health and safety. The council would be better served to improve transport links in the area and help pre existing local businesses, rather than contribute to overcrowding and desolation of the environment. REGARDING TRANSPORT STATEMENT: Outlined transport statement only seems to rely on using pre existing transport networks, which are already in poor shape. Table 2.2 collision year and severity The transport statement sites that there were no collisions recently which is an outright lie, please look to the chronicle for updated news on crashes on city road and walker road. The transport statement is only accurate till 2020 when obviously there are less people on the roads during COVID. Maybe more up to date factual information would be pertinent? Seems quite grotesque that MALMO developers should seek to profit from the pandemic in this way. I have attached photographic evidence of a recent crash (23/10/22) for a more accurate depiction- the photo is taken 0.5miles away from the proposed development site. 2.7.1 Existing Transport Summary Transport statement refers only to walk ways external to the site which means they will have privatised all access for pedestrians to the river walk? Discussed repeatedly and concluded in 3.4 Pedestrian Facilities Only discussed improvement is on “Quayside Road” after discussions with NCC which is not where the transport issues will be caused as development is much more likely to affect the city road/walker A186 road as the main road going into the city centre and connecting to the coast road/motorway etc. 2.5 Public Transport Facilities As a person who actually uses all of the transport networks listed I can see many holes in the transport statement, it seems based on the timetables represented by the providers which are never actually adhered to by either bus company or the metro and sorely lacking as a public service. Go North Easts website/live map even states that services are subject to “Short notice journey cancellations” this is not a reliable service to base a planning permission on. As a resident for the last 8 years I can absolutely categorically guarantee the Q3 bus has never arrived every 15 minutes for a full day as long as I have lived on its route, in fact most of its services are cancelled with no notice. The few buses that do run are usually overcrowded by the time they arrive at the Ouseburn, there is no suggestion of more services to help with the overcrowding in the transport statement. 3.9.2 Car parking Standards and again in 3.9 Proposed Parking Provision With regard to the car parking standards, I find the use of the phrase “For new development the needs for car parking will be assessed and the minimum for operational needs will be permitted while promoting shared facilities where appropriate.” worrying as there are already continued issues with parking up and down walker road and city road (A186), where cars line the sides of the road causing more traffic as there is already not enough car parking spaces for residents, visitors and commuting workers, to add more cars into this mix is only going to worsen the problem. I have included photographic evidence of the parking problem on Walker Road (A186), all photos taken within 0.4miles of the development site taken at 9:12am on 25/10/22 after the rush hour traffic has passed. Furthermore the recommendation for 101 spaces is a recommendation for the minimum number of one car per household which I find unlikely for people with the income level to afford to live in a new build property on the Quayside. The plan also states these people will not automatically be afforded a parking space by the virtue of buying or renting a property, which will automatically force people further outside of the development. Yet again this development puts further unnecessary strain on the local community. 4.5 Development Impact Assessment “The development is forecast to generate 27 two-way vehicular trips (cars and taxis ) in the AM peak and 26 two-way vehicular trips in the PM peak, equating to less than 1 two-way vehicle trip every two minutes. In reality, the highly accessible edge of city centre location will result in a significantly increased proportion of residents travelling to and from the site on foot, by bicycle or by public transport and it is therefore expected that the level of traffic generation will be less than that identified in Table 4.3.” It even states that it is going to create a larger problem with transport links in the area being under so much pressure people are now forced to walk and cycle. 3.8 Servicing and deliveries This states that servicing will enter from the city road, causing even more traffic. It also states that the bins of the residents will be left on public footpaths, causing even greater damage to the environment than I had previously expected. 5.1 Summary With an extra 2 two-way vehicle trips generated every hour on an already overcrowded stretch of road this will cause irreparable delays in an already lacking transport system.Once again this development proves to be an unnecessary burden on the community, the environment and give absolutely nothing back. It should also be noted that the cycle hub and cycle paths upon which this transport statement and travel summary are heavily reliant already exist in our infrastructure and are not something given by MALMO. | 26/10/2022 | Object |
| I object to the revised plans, specifically to the continued presence of a tower block, the height and mass of which are totally out of proportion with everything around it. * At 10 storeys high it will still tower far above everything around it, not just the Sailors Bethel, Toffee Factory chimney and former Ousburn school, but it will look down on High Quay and Lime Square which stand on much higher ground. It will be three times as high as Mariners Wharf a few feet away, and will block light to their eastern windows (as noted in the daylight assessment). * It will have an unacceptable impact the Ouseburn conservation area - as it is directly to the south, it will throw its shadow across the conservation area in the middle of the day, especially in winter. * It's not compatible with the vision of the original East Quayside development plan which proposed using Malmo Quay as public green space due to its obvious fantastic views and position at the end of the quayside. This would be a far better use for the land than high-density housing. I have no objection to the relocation of the cycling hub to Malmo Quay. * The parking provision is inadequate, as noted in the transport statement. All the flats in the block are 2-bedroom flats, and anyone who can afford one will likely own a car (this is supported if you look at the number of cars parked outside Mariners Wharf of an evening - about the same number of cars as flats). But instead of providing 58 parking spaces for Malmo Quay, the plan appears to show only 16. Inevitably, the other 42 residents will not park in a parking barn half a mile away, but will instead park on the quayside road, on Horatio St, Tyne St, Ford St and Albion Row, all of which are much nearer to their home than the planned parking barn. This will cause a massive nuisance for the residents of existing homes. * The transport statement calls for all parking bays to provide EV charging. This can ONLY work if there are the same number of bays as cars. Having charged their EV, residents will NOT be willing to move it out of the way to let someone else charge, if they must then drive half a mile, and then walk back home in all weathers. Encouraging EV takeup and severely limiting the number of parking spaces are simply incompatible. | 27/10/2022 | Object |
| My hunch is that the Spillers car park is not going to have enough spaces to accommodate the people who currently use it when working such as myself working at the Toffee Factory, and the new residents of the flats. I pay a permit for this car park already, I don't want to pay for a permit yearly to not have any confidence that I will even get a space. | 28/10/2022 | Support |
| Planning application reference: 2021/2404/01/EIA Name: Dr. Nigel Dipper Address: 40 High Quay, City Road, Newcastle, NE1 2PD I would like to object to the revised development proposal on Malmo Quay and Spillers quay for the following reasons: 1) This is a hybrid application for two very different sites. The requirements for the development of the two sites are very different. Combining the two is unacceptable. Malmo Quay needs to be considered on its own with no links to outline proposals for Spillers Quay. There is no advantage, except perhaps to the developers, in considering the two together. 2) The Malmo Quay site has been stated many times by several developers over the years to represent a ‘very difficult and expensive site to develop’. It is also a critical site in the overall redevelopment of the Quayside. This point of land is unique in its position at the entrance to the famous Ouseburn valley. It is being treated here like any other development site. It is not. Any development here should be on a very small scale leaving the majority of the site towards the rivers as a public amenity space with greenery, paving and seating. This proposal attempts to squeeze a vast number of new homes into a site that has space for a tiny fraction of that number. This is done by proposing a 10 storey tower on this critical and very sensitive site. 3) The proposed tower is too massy and far too tall (10 stories) for this site. Five or six stories would match the adjoining Mariners Wharf. It is totally out of scale with the existing developments on the Quayside. Such a tower would dominate the riverside. It would be highly detrimental to the small scale vision of the Ouseburn Valley as an ex-industrial area now very successfully converted to an artisanal area of recreational and artistic enterprises. The low level residential developments so far in the lower Ouseburn have respected the size and design of existing buildings. This proposal does not. The tower would do substantial harm to this area and be a blight on it for decades to come. 4) The proposal does not respect the building line of the existing 4 story buildings on the Quayside. The Mariners Wharf buildings fall back from the river Tyne following the roadside. That design is very successful in leaving a clear public space on the riverside at the confluence of the two rivers. Any development on the site should respect this line. The proposal does not. Building forward of this line should not be allowed. The proposed buildings convert the current public space, from a unique part of the world famous Newcastle Quayside, into just another dull residential development. 5) The view of the river Tyne and its bridges from the higher ground in front of the Free Trade is perhaps the most iconic image of our city of Newcastle. It is this view above all others that is known throughout the world and attracts both tourists, residents and businesses to our beautiful city. This proposal would destroy that view. Despite comments in the proposal to the contrary, the proposed lower level buildings block this view. They are two massy and too many. 6) The Ouseburn is the site of some of the city’s most iconic heritage buildings. Any development at Malmo must respect these buildings. This proposal does not. The Ouseburn Schools building, the Sailors Bethel, the old warehouses (now the Hotel du vin) and John Dobson’s flax mill and surrounding buildings represent the history of our valley. This proposal is totally out of scale with all of these, damages their setting and detracts from the historic atmosphere of the Ouseburn. 7) The cycle hub. This building on Spillers Quay would be demolished under these proposals. This was built with public funds and has served several very useful functions since it was built in the 1990s. It continues to be a very popular and widely used asset for our community. It should be retained. The proposed replacement on the tip of Malmo Quay is a poorer building with fewer and inferior facilities in the wrong place. Combining its function with residences above would restrict the use of the cafe space for any event that is at all noisy. 8) Spillers Quay. This site represents an excellent opportunity to develop a combination of residential property and public space that would extend the Quayside and be a great asset for the city. The problems of developing this site successfully (including its proximity to the ferris wheel development), need to be considered in detail and not restricted by outline planning decisions tied to the proposals for Malmo Quay. It is this Spillers site that represents an opportunity for a substantial number of new homes. Malmo does not. This proposal would fix the number of new homes on both sites and prevent the correction of this imbalance. 9) Car parking. Whilst car ownership may fall in the coming decades, this is not yet the case. The proposal makes no provision for parking at Malmo Quay and a development of this size would lead to severe problems with parking and traffic in the area. Living at Malmo and parking somewhere on Spillers is not a solution. This is another reason why Malmo is not a suitable site for any but a small residential development. 10) Planning policy. The proposal is contrary to the city’s policy on tall buildings. It does not respect the highly successful overall redevelopment plan for the Quayside as visualised in the Tyne Gorge Study. 11) The proposed tower would have a detrimental affect on existing buildings by overshadowing and restricting ingress of sunlight, as noted in the application. It would also substantially reduce the privacy of existing residents. 12) There is very little open green space along the Quayside. Malmo Quay is currently such a green space. There is an opportunity to create a Local Green Space (LGS), protected in perpetuity for all residents and visitors to our city to enjoy. Improving the site in this way would provide a ‘Gateway to the Ouseburn’ to attract people to our valley. In conclusion: Malmo and Spillers Quays represent a unique opportunity to extend the Newcastle Quayside, to link the city to the Ouseburn Valley and to provide welcome additional housing (on Spillers). This revised proposal still does not achieve this. It is totally inappropriate for the Malmo site and would be damaging to the local area and to the city as a whole. It should be rejected. | 08/11/2022 | Object |
| My original comments still apply: 1. Building Design and hybrid application 2. Borderline Viability 3. Transport issues 4. Cultural impacts 5. Inconsistency of the application and a lack of trust In addition to those points detailed in my original objection, the reduction in height of the main tower doesn't really make much difference as it is still massively out of scale compared with the surrounding buildings. In addition we were told that the tower needed to be its original design and height to make the application financially viable so how does reducing the number of floors help with that? I am still majorly concerned about the hybrid nature of this application which gives the developer freedom to do whatever they want on Spillers Quay. A better solution would be for a detailed proposal for that space and, perhaps, the area currently highlighted for the giant wheel (the permission for which looks like running out of time) and leaving Malmo QWuay to be developed into a green space. | 13/01/2023 | Object |
| My original comments still apply: 1. Building Design and hybrid application 2. Borderline Viability 3. Transport issues 4. Cultural impacts 5. Inconsistency of the application and a lack of trust In addition to those points detailed in my original objection, the reduction in height of the main tower doesn't really make much difference as it is still massively out of scale compared with the surrounding buildings. In addition we were told that the tower needed to be its original design and height to make the application financially viable so how does reducing the number of floors help with that? I am still majorly concerned about the hybrid nature of this application which gives the developer freedom to do whatever they want on Spillers Quay. A better solution would be for a detailed proposal for that space and, perhaps, the area currently highlighted for the giant wheel (the permission for which looks like running out of time) and leaving Malmo Quay to be developed into a green space. | 13/01/2023 | Object |
| Once again I'd like to raise my objection to the monstrous plans currently proposed for Malmo Quay. The beautiful, historic area where I live is again under threat from the developers who appear to have put profit/viability ahead of their declared intention to create something the whole community can be proud of. Malmo holds an opportunity for something truly iconic architecturally - for the whole city to admire - and instead we're offered this bland testament to greed. My flat will be overshadowed, my light restricted, my privacy compromised and for what? Parking, transport and environmental plans don't seem to be rooted in the reality of living in this area. These are cynical plans which have little architectural merit - when the site itself offers the opportunity for something truly breathtaking for the city itself. | 02/02/2023 | Object |
| Once again I wish to object to this proposal. Sadly, while I agree to the development of the sites in question, I do not agree to this proposal The proposal is not in keeping with existing developments in the area. Although the revised plans show a tower block reduced in size, it is still too tall and large. It seems the overall footprint is larger than the original plans as well (this was a positive thing in the original design) Such a building would be overbearing and an eyesore in an area of the city with much heritage and history As I raised previously, there are few services or amenities such as shops etc nearby, within walking distance, which will increase car use. Public transport links are very limited in the area, this in turn increases the need for car parking and puts strain on local roads. There are no bus services on the lower Quayside (these were moved a few years ago). There is only one bus service, the Q3, from City Road. The nearest Metro stations at Byker and Manors are a long uphill walk from the development and it would be quicker and easier to walk directly into the city centre There will be an increase in car usage resulting from the increased population which will be reflected in increased usages of the nearby roads such as City Road and adjoining roads. There are regular near misses at the various junctions in the area. In particular the junction between Cut Bank and City Road. There was a serious accident here last year Attached below is the text of my original objection from last year - the majority of which is still applicable “ I wish to object to this proposal The development is not fitting for the area. The proposal for an 18 storey tower block is not in keeping with existing developments on either the Quayside or Ouseburn areas. Such a building would be overbearing and an eyesore in an area of the city with much heritage and history. It would be the tallest building in the area There are few amenities such as shops etc nearby, within walking distance which will increase car use Public transport links are very limited in the area, this in turn increases the need for car parking and puts strain on local roads. There are no bus services on the lower Quayside (these were moved a few years ago). There is only one bus service, the Q3, from City Road which can only be reached by a relatively long roundabout walk (>5 mins) and up a steep hill. Contrary to information provided in this application, the bus stop for travel into the city, does not have a shelter and it does not have seating; additionally the Q3 bus service operates a half-hourly service during the evenings. It has been cut to this over the years from a 10 minute frequency when it was originally introduced. The Q3 route also engages with the lower Quayside near the Tyne Bridge and is therefore subject to traffic congestion at certain times of day meaning services are sometimes unreliable. A 15 minutes service is not frequent enough to encourage bus use over private cars. The transport statement does not take into consideration the steep uphill walk to ‘nearby’ metro stations or bus stops. In fact it is probably quicker and easier to walk into the city centre than to walk to Byker and catch a Metro into the city centre The area is not fit to support such a large increase in population along with associated car ownership and public transport requirements. Significant infrastructure improvements are needed to justify an increased population There is already a pollution problem in the city and a clean air zone is due to be introduced in June 2022, the boundary nearby the proposed development. Increased car use will result in increased pollution and this may contribute to a future need to extend the CAZ or tighten restrictions Increased traffic will result in increased pollution, congestion and accidents. While the accident rate my seem low, as a resident of City Road, I note that there are frequent accidents and near-misses at the various junctions in the area. In particular the junction with Cut Bank and City Road. The crash mat website does not seem to truly represent the problem Increased traffic will, even in a slow speed environment, make the area less pleasant, especially for cyclists Increased traffic will damage historic road surfaces like the cobbled Horatio Street ” | 29/04/2023 | Object |
| I am writing to formally object to the planning permission for the proposed development project. Firstly, the height of the proposed building will obstruct the river, which is a cherished aspect of our area. This change would alter the character of the riverside and detract from the natural beauty that residents and visitors currently enjoy. Additionally, the development would cast shadows over the surrounding properties, leading to a loss of sunlight and affecting the overall atmosphere of the neighbourhood. This project, as currently planned, would involve the construction apartment blocks that would significantly obstruct natural light for nearby homes, especially those over three storeys high. Many residents rely on sunlight for both their well-being and the aesthetics of their properties, and this development would lead to a noticeable loss of light, impacting the quality of life for those affected. Additionally, the design and scale of the proposed structures are out of character with the existing architecture of our neighbourhood. This inconsistency will disrupt the visual harmony of our Ouseburn and Spiller's Wharf community, making it less appealing and diminishing the unique charm that our area is known for. Furthermore, the construction and presence of these buildings will lead to a loss of privacy for homeowners, as the existing apartments at Ouseburn Wharf would overlook private yards and living spaces, creating an uncomfortable living environment. Moreover, I am worried about the potential strain on local infrastructure and services. The influx of residents to such a large buildings will lead to increased traffic congestion on Walker Road which already is pressure on public transport, and a higher demand for local amenities, which may not be able to accommodate the additional population. The current traffic conditions are problematic, and the addition of a significant number of new residents from the proposed apartments would exacerbate these issues. Walker Road is already struggling to accommodate existing traffic, and it is clear that it cannot handle the increased volume that would result from this development. This will lead to further delays, increased safety risks for drivers and pedestrians, and a decline in the quality of life for residents in the area. I am deeply concerned about the potential impact on local wildlife, particularly rare species that inhabit the Ouseburn area. The development will disrupt their natural habitats, leading to a decline in their populations and altering the ecological balance. It is crucial that we consider the long-term effects on our environment and community before moving forward with this project. I urge the planning department to consider the huge implications for our community and the environment. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Yours sincerely Fay Mehta (Owner Occupier) 46 Ouseburn Wharf, St Lawrence Road, Newcastle, NE6 1BY | 25/03/2025 | Object |
| I am writing to formally object to the planning permission for the proposed development project. Firstly, the height of the proposed building will obstruct the river, which is a cherished aspect of our area. This change would alter the character of the riverside and detract from the natural beauty that residents and visitors currently enjoy. Additionally, the development would cast shadows over the surrounding properties, leading to a loss of sunlight and affecting the overall atmosphere of the neighbourhood. This project, as currently planned, would involve the construction apartment blocks that would significantly obstruct natural light for nearby homes, especially those over three storeys high. Many residents rely on sunlight for both their well-being and the aesthetics of their properties, and this development would lead to a noticeable loss of light, impacting the quality of life for those affected. Additionally, the design and scale of the proposed structures are out of character with the existing architecture of our neighbourhood. This inconsistency will disrupt the visual harmony of our Ouseburn and Spiller's Wharf community, making it less appealing and diminishing the unique charm that our area is known for. Furthermore, the construction and presence of these buildings will lead to a loss of privacy for homeowners, as the existing apartments at Ouseburn Wharf would overlook private yards and living spaces, creating an uncomfortable living environment. Moreover, I am worried about the potential strain on local infrastructure and services. The influx of residents to such a large buildings will lead to increased traffic congestion on Walker Road which already is pressure on public transport, and a higher demand for local amenities, which may not be able to accommodate the additional population. The current traffic conditions are problematic, and the addition of a significant number of new residents from the proposed apartments would exacerbate these issues. Walker Road is already struggling to accommodate existing traffic, and it is clear that it cannot handle the increased volume that would result from this development. This will lead to further delays, increased safety risks for drivers and pedestrians, and a decline in the quality of life for residents in the area. I am deeply concerned about the potential impact on local wildlife, particularly rare species that inhabit the Ouseburn area. The development will disrupt their natural habitats, leading to a decline in their populations and altering the ecological balance. It is crucial that we consider the long-term effects on our environment and community before moving forward with this project. I urge the planning department to consider the huge implications for our community and the environment. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Yours sincerely Fay Mehta (Owner Occupier) 46 Ouseburn Wharf, St Lawrence Road, Newcastle, NE6 1BY | 25/03/2025 | Object |
| I am writing to formally object to the planning permission for the proposed development project. Firstly, the height of the proposed buildings will obstruct the river, which is a cherished aspect of our area. This change would alter the character of the riverside and detract from the natural beauty that residents and visitors currently enjoy. Additionally, the development would cast shadows over the surrounding properties, leading to a loss of sunlight and affecting the overall atmosphere of the neighbourhood. This project, as currently planned, would involve the construction apartment blocks that would significantly obstruct natural light for nearby homes, especially those over three storeys high. Many residents rely on sunlight for both their well-being and the aesthetics of their properties, and this development would lead to a noticeable loss of light, impacting the quality of life for those affected. Additionally, the design and scale of the proposed structures are out of character with the existing architecture of our neighbourhood. This inconsistency will disrupt the visual harmony of our Ouseburn and Spiller's Wharf community, making it less appealing and diminishing the unique charm that our area is known for. Furthermore, the construction and presence of these buildings will lead to a loss of privacy for homeowners, as the existing apartments at Ouseburn Wharf would overlook private yards and living spaces, creating an uncomfortable living environment. Moreover, I am worried about the potential strain on local infrastructure and services. The influx of residents to such a large buildings will lead to increased traffic congestion on Walker Road which already is pressure on public transport, and a higher demand for local amenities, which may not be able to accommodate the additional population. The current traffic conditions are problematic, and the addition of a significant number of new residents from the proposed apartments would exacerbate these issues. Walker Road is already struggling to accommodate existing traffic, and it is clear that it cannot handle the increased volume that would result from this development. This will lead to further delays, increased safety risks for drivers and pedestrians, and a decline in the quality of life for residents in the area. I am deeply concerned about the potential impact on local wildlife, particularly rare species that inhabit the Ouseburn area. The development will disrupt their natural habitats, leading to a decline in their populations and altering the ecological balance. It is crucial that we consider the long-term effects on our environment and community before moving forward with this project. I urge the planning department to consider the huge implications for our community and the environment. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Yours sincerely Fay Mehta (Owner Occupier) 46 Ouseburn Wharf, St Lawrence Road, Newcastle, NE6 1BY | 25/03/2025 | Object |
| I am writing to formally object to the planning permission for the proposed development project. Firstly, the height of the proposed building will obstruct the river, which is a cherished aspect of our area. This change would alter the character of the riverside and detract from the natural beauty that residents and visitors currently enjoy. Additionally, the development would cast shadows over the surrounding properties, leading to a loss of sunlight and affecting the overall atmosphere of the neighbourhood. This project, as currently planned, would involve the construction apartment blocks that would significantly obstruct natural light for nearby homes, especially those over three storeys high. Many residents rely on sunlight for both their well-being and the aesthetics of their properties, and this development would lead to a noticeable loss of light, impacting the quality of life for those affected. Additionally, the design and scale of the proposed structures are out of character with the existing architecture of our neighbourhood. This inconsistency will disrupt the visual harmony of our Ouseburn and Spiller's Wharf community, making it less appealing and diminishing the unique charm that our area is known for. Furthermore, the construction and presence of these buildings will lead to a loss of privacy for homeowners, as the existing apartments at Ouseburn Wharf would overlook private yards and living spaces, creating an uncomfortable living environment. Moreover, I am worried about the potential strain on local infrastructure and services. The influx of residents to such a large buildings will lead to increased traffic congestion on Walker Road which already is pressure on public transport, and a higher demand for local amenities, which may not be able to accommodate the additional population. The current traffic conditions are problematic, and the addition of a significant number of new residents from the proposed apartments would exacerbate these issues. Walker Road is already struggling to accommodate existing traffic, and it is clear that it cannot handle the increased volume that would result from this development. This will lead to further delays, increased safety risks for drivers and pedestrians, and a decline in the quality of life for residents in the area. I am deeply concerned about the potential impact on local wildlife, particularly rare species that inhabit the Ouseburn area. The development will disrupt their natural habitats, leading to a decline in their populations and altering the ecological balance. It is crucial that we consider the long-term effects on our environment and community before moving forward with this project. I urge the planning department to consider the huge implications for our community and the environment. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Yours sincerely Fay Mehta (Owner Occupier) 46 Ouseburn Wharf, St Lawrence Road, Newcastle, NE6 1BY | 25/03/2025 | Object |
| I am writing to formally object to the planning permission for the proposed development project. Firstly, the height of the proposed building will obstruct the river, which is a cherished aspect of our area. This change would alter the character of the riverside and detract from the natural beauty that residents and visitors currently enjoy. Additionally, the development would cast shadows over the surrounding properties, leading to a loss of sunlight and affecting the overall atmosphere of the neighbourhood. This project, as currently planned, would involve the construction apartment blocks that would significantly obstruct natural light for nearby homes, especially those over three storeys high. Many residents rely on sunlight for both their well-being and the aesthetics of their properties, and this development would lead to a noticeable loss of light, impacting the quality of life for those affected. Additionally, the design and scale of the proposed structures are out of character with the existing architecture of our neighbourhood. This inconsistency will disrupt the visual harmony of our Ouseburn and Spiller's Wharf community, making it less appealing and diminishing the unique charm that our area is known for. Furthermore, the construction and presence of these buildings will lead to a loss of privacy for homeowners, as the existing apartments at Ouseburn Wharf would overlook private yards and living spaces, creating an uncomfortable living environment. Moreover, I am worried about the potential strain on local infrastructure and services. The influx of residents to such a large buildings will lead to increased traffic congestion on Walker Road which already is pressure on public transport, and a higher demand for local amenities, which may not be able to accommodate the additional population. The current traffic conditions are problematic, and the addition of a significant number of new residents from the proposed apartments would exacerbate these issues. Walker Road is already struggling to accommodate existing traffic, and it is clear that it cannot handle the increased volume that would result from this development. This will lead to further delays, increased safety risks for drivers and pedestrians, and a decline in the quality of life for residents in the area. I am deeply concerned about the potential impact on local wildlife, particularly rare species that inhabit the Ouseburn area. The development will disrupt their natural habitats, leading to a decline in their populations and altering the ecological balance. It is crucial that we consider the long-term effects on our environment and community before moving forward with this project. I urge the planning department to consider the huge implications for our community and the environment. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Yours sincerely Fay Mehta (Owner Occupier) 46 Ouseburn Wharf, St Lawrence Road, Newcastle, NE6 1BY | 25/03/2025 | Object |
| I am writing to formally object to the planning permission for the proposed development project. Firstly, the height of the proposed buildings will obstruct the river, which is a cherished aspect of our area. This change would alter the character of the riverside and detract from the natural beauty that residents and visitors currently enjoy. Additionally, the development would cast shadows over the surrounding properties, leading to a loss of sunlight and affecting the overall atmosphere of the neighbourhood. This project, as currently planned, would involve the construction apartment blocks that would significantly obstruct natural light for nearby homes, especially those over three storeys high. Many residents rely on sunlight for both their well-being and the aesthetics of their properties, and this development would lead to a noticeable loss of light, impacting the quality of life for those affected. Additionally, the design and scale of the proposed structures are out of character with the existing architecture of our neighbourhood. This inconsistency will disrupt the visual harmony of our Ouseburn and Spiller's Wharf community, making it less appealing and diminishing the unique charm that our area is known for. Furthermore, the construction and presence of these buildings will lead to a loss of privacy for homeowners, as the existing apartments at Ouseburn Wharf would overlook private yards and living spaces, creating an uncomfortable living environment. Moreover, I am worried about the potential strain on local infrastructure and services. The influx of residents to such a large buildings will lead to increased traffic congestion on Walker Road which already is pressure on public transport, and a higher demand for local amenities, which may not be able to accommodate the additional population. The current traffic conditions are problematic, and the addition of a significant number of new residents from the proposed apartments would exacerbate these issues. Walker Road is already struggling to accommodate existing traffic, and it is clear that it cannot handle the increased volume that would result from this development. This will lead to further delays, increased safety risks for drivers and pedestrians, and a decline in the quality of life for residents in the area. I am deeply concerned about the potential impact on local wildlife, particularly rare species that inhabit the Ouseburn area. The development will disrupt their natural habitats, leading to a decline in their populations and altering the ecological balance. It is crucial that we consider the long-term effects on our environment and community before moving forward with this project. I urge the planning department to consider the huge implications for our community and the environment. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Yours sincerely Fay Mehta (Owner Occupier) 46 Ouseburn Wharf, St Lawrence Road, Newcastle, NE6 1BY | 25/03/2025 | Object |
| I am writing to formally object to the planning permission for the proposed development project. Firstly, the height of the proposed buildings will obstruct the river, which is a cherished aspect of our area. This change would alter the character of the riverside and detract from the natural beauty that residents and visitors currently enjoy. Additionally, the development would cast shadows over the surrounding properties, leading to a loss of sunlight and affecting the overall atmosphere of the neighbourhood. This project, as currently planned, would involve the construction apartment blocks that would significantly obstruct natural light for nearby homes, especially those over three storeys high. Many residents rely on sunlight for both their well-being and the aesthetics of their properties, and this development would lead to a noticeable loss of light, impacting the quality of life for those affected. Additionally, the design and scale of the proposed structures are out of character with the existing architecture of our neighbourhood. This inconsistency will disrupt the visual harmony of our Ouseburn and Spiller's Wharf community, making it less appealing and diminishing the unique charm that our area is known for. Furthermore, the construction and presence of these buildings will lead to a loss of privacy for homeowners, as the existing apartments at Ouseburn Wharf would overlook private yards and living spaces, creating an uncomfortable living environment. Moreover, I am worried about the potential strain on local infrastructure and services. The influx of residents to such a large buildings will lead to increased traffic congestion on Walker Road which already is pressure on public transport, and a higher demand for local amenities, which may not be able to accommodate the additional population. The current traffic conditions are problematic, and the addition of a significant number of new residents from the proposed apartments would exacerbate these issues. Walker Road is already struggling to accommodate existing traffic, and it is clear that it cannot handle the increased volume that would result from this development. This will lead to further delays, increased safety risks for drivers and pedestrians, and a decline in the quality of life for residents in the area. I am deeply concerned about the potential impact on local wildlife, particularly rare species that inhabit the Ouseburn area. The development will disrupt their natural habitats, leading to a decline in their populations and altering the ecological balance. It is crucial that we consider the long-term effects on our environment and community before moving forward with this project. I urge the planning department to consider the huge implications for our community and the environment. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Yours sincerely Fay Mehta (Owner Occupier) 46 Ouseburn Wharf, St Lawrence Road, Newcastle, NE6 1BY | 25/03/2025 | Object |
| I am writing to formally object to the planning permission for the proposed development project. Firstly, the height of the proposed buildings will obstruct the river, which is a cherished aspect of our area. This change would alter the character of the riverside and detract from the natural beauty that residents and visitors currently enjoy. Additionally, the development would cast shadows over the surrounding properties, leading to a loss of sunlight and affecting the overall atmosphere of the neighbourhood. This project, as currently planned, would involve the construction apartment blocks that would significantly obstruct natural light for nearby homes, especially those over three storeys high. Many residents rely on sunlight for both their well-being and the aesthetics of their properties, and this development would lead to a noticeable loss of light, impacting the quality of life for those affected. Additionally, the design and scale of the proposed structures are out of character with the existing architecture of our neighbourhood. This inconsistency will disrupt the visual harmony of our Ouseburn and Spiller's Wharf community, making it less appealing and diminishing the unique charm that our area is known for. Furthermore, the construction and presence of these buildings will lead to a loss of privacy for homeowners, as the existing apartments at Ouseburn Wharf would overlook private yards and living spaces, creating an uncomfortable living environment. Moreover, I am worried about the potential strain on local infrastructure and services. The influx of residents to such a large buildings will lead to increased traffic congestion on Walker Road which already is pressure on public transport, and a higher demand for local amenities, which may not be able to accommodate the additional population. The current traffic conditions are problematic, and the addition of a significant number of new residents from the proposed apartments would exacerbate these issues. Walker Road is already struggling to accommodate existing traffic, and it is clear that it cannot handle the increased volume that would result from this development. This will lead to further delays, increased safety risks for drivers and pedestrians, and a decline in the quality of life for residents in the area. I am deeply concerned about the potential impact on local wildlife, particularly rare species that inhabit the Ouseburn area. The development will disrupt their natural habitats, leading to a decline in their populations and altering the ecological balance. It is crucial that we consider the long-term effects on our environment and community before moving forward with this project. I urge the planning department to consider the huge implications for our community and the environment. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Yours sincerely Fay Mehta (Owner Occupier) 46 Ouseburn Wharf, St Lawrence Road, Newcastle, NE6 1BY | 25/03/2025 | Object |
| I am writing to formally object to the planning permission for the proposed development project. Firstly, the height of the proposed buildings will obstruct the river, which is a cherished aspect of our area. This change would alter the character of the riverside and detract from the natural beauty that residents and visitors currently enjoy. Additionally, the development would cast shadows over the surrounding properties, leading to a loss of sunlight and affecting the overall atmosphere of the neighbourhood. This project, as currently planned, would involve the construction apartment blocks that would significantly obstruct natural light for nearby homes, especially those over three storeys high. Many residents rely on sunlight for both their well-being and the aesthetics of their properties, and this development would lead to a noticeable loss of light, impacting the quality of life for those affected. Additionally, the design and scale of the proposed structures are out of character with the existing architecture of our neighbourhood. This inconsistency will disrupt the visual harmony of our Ouseburn and Spiller's Wharf community, making it less appealing and diminishing the unique charm that our area is known for. Furthermore, the construction and presence of these buildings will lead to a loss of privacy for homeowners, as the existing apartments at Ouseburn Wharf would overlook private yards and living spaces, creating an uncomfortable living environment. Moreover, I am worried about the potential strain on local infrastructure and services. The influx of residents to such a large buildings will lead to increased traffic congestion on Walker Road which already is pressure on public transport, and a higher demand for local amenities, which may not be able to accommodate the additional population. The current traffic conditions are problematic, and the addition of a significant number of new residents from the proposed apartments would exacerbate these issues. Walker Road is already struggling to accommodate existing traffic, and it is clear that it cannot handle the increased volume that would result from this development. This will lead to further delays, increased safety risks for drivers and pedestrians, and a decline in the quality of life for residents in the area. I am deeply concerned about the potential impact on local wildlife, particularly rare species that inhabit the Ouseburn area. The development will disrupt their natural habitats, leading to a decline in their populations and altering the ecological balance. It is crucial that we consider the long-term effects on our environment and community before moving forward with this project. I urge the planning department to consider the huge implications for our community and the environment. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Yours sincerely Fay Mehta (Owner Occupier) 46 Ouseburn Wharf, St Lawrence Road, Newcastle, NE6 1BY | 25/03/2025 | Object |
| There's a lot of technical stuff, but not much on the actual redesign. If that latest "C U R R E N T P R O P O S A L" is indicative of the new 10 storey block, again, it's just not good enough. They were talking about a world class design for a world class site. This is just meh. | 26/03/2025 | Object |
| 1. The previous ground works caused quite a lot of nuisance to me. There was a lot of dust created which was unpleasant and probably somewhat unhealthy for me. This dust also daily coated windows and car. It was expensive and difficult to keep clean. The previous groundwork’s also caused a lot of noise and vibration during pile driving. This noise meant I was unable to have windows open since it was very loud and made conversation difficult. The vibration regularly shook the apartment and caused nuisance cracking to plasterwork. 2. The 10 story apartment block is overbearing in size. In close proximity it concerns me that it would also affect natural light in the mornings. 3. The 10 story apartment block has balconies which face directly into bedrooms in my apartment. This will affect my privacy. In good weather they would be used frequently. I would be both overlooked and they directly look into my bedrooms. 4. At the end of life of the 10 story apartment block how can it be safely demolished when it is in such close proximity to Mariners Wharf? 5. The Quayside presently is a quiet road. This easily facilitates reverse parking for the residents of Mariners Wharf. With some many additional dwellings the road will become very busy. This causes me safety concerns as well as congestion, parking, and service traffic generation. 6. What would the commercial unit of the 10 story apartment block be used for? I have concerns for antisocial behaviour? Are there any additional security cameras in communal outdoor spaces? | 31/03/2025 | Object |
| 1. The previous ground works caused quite a lot of nuisance to me. There was a lot of dust created which was unpleasant and probably somewhat unhealthy for me. This dust also daily coated windows and car. It was expensive and difficult to keep clean. The previous groundwork’s also caused a lot of noise and vibration during pile driving. This noise meant I was unable to have windows open since it was very loud and made conversation difficult. The vibration regularly shook the apartment and caused nuisance cracking to plasterwork. 2. The 10 story apartment block is overbearing in size. In close proximity it concerns me that it would also affect natural light in the mornings. 3. The 10 story apartment block has balconies which face directly into bedrooms in my apartment. This will affect my privacy. In good weather they would be used frequently. I would be both overlooked and they directly look into my bedrooms. 4. At the end of life of the 10 story apartment block how can it be safely demolished when it is in such close proximity to Mariners Wharf? 5. The Quayside presently is a quiet road. This easily facilitates reverse parking for the residents of Mariners Wharf. With some many additional dwellings the road will become very busy. This causes me safety concerns as well as congestion, parking, and service traffic generation. 6. What would the commercial unit of the 10 story apartment block be used for? I have concerns for antisocial behaviour? Are there any additional security cameras in communal outdoor spaces? | 31/03/2025 | Object |
| I am writing to object to the above application. The massing of the proposal is not in-keeping with the existing skyline and the historic story of the ouseburn. The design is not sympathetic to the iconic views that are provided from the ouseburn providing visual links to the city, the proposal removes the link between the ouseburn and the city, removing any views that were provided. The tower block is unecessary and does not meet the need of the residents in the area, being out of proportion with the surroundings. Having such a large mass blocking the ouseburn from the rest of the city will have huge adverse effects on the businesses within this area. The space would benefit from more green space, adding to the limited biodiversity within the area. The multi storey building on the corner of the site closest to the river does not fit with the rest of the proposal, and if it was either removed or taken to one storey, this would not impact the views over the river as badly (as seen in image depicting views from the free trade). | 17/04/2025 | Object |
| I am objecting to this latest (2025) amended application. The Development Director of igloo, (the developer), states "Essentially,it is the same design". Essentially, it has the same flaws. A 10 storey block has no place in this location so close to the river at this end of the Quayside. Keep the maximum height to 3 storeys. Noise levels from outdoor events at the Tyne Bar will be problematic for the new residents and will eventually lead to curtailment of these events. This would be a great loss for the area. Public transport is negligible with only one bus with the stop up a steep hill. No good for anyone with physical disabilities. Parking provision is negligible. Aren''t we supposed to all have EV cars in 15 years time? If the alternative is cycling then best of luck for those working in the city centre having to cycle up a steep bank. This is the wrong development for this site. | 17/04/2025 | Object |
| test nb | 17/04/2025 | Neutral |
| I am a resident at High Quay, one of the closest buildings to this site. I do not object to the development of Spillers Quay or the construction of town houses on Malmo Quay, but I object specifically to the use of Malmo Quay for very high density (tower block) housing on several grounds: * Parking: the plans show just 13 car parking spaces for 58 dwellings on Malmo Quay. Parking in the area is already under pressure, and it's an everyday sight to see people using the private parking on Tyne Street to visit the quayside (you see them park, then immediately walk down the steps to the quayside), and residents are forced to park on the double yellow lines on Tyne St every day as a result. With dozens of additional cars, there will be much more contention and illegal parking. Everyone who can afford a luxury quayside flat costing several hundred thousand pounds, can afford a car. For evidence, look at Mariners Wharf, where every apartment has a numbered parking space: visit in the evening and you'll see that virtually every space is in use. So every household at Mariners Wharf has a car. It's absurd to think that residents of the new development right next door will be radically different. * Traffic: Whether or not they have a car, 58 more dwellings will cause a lot of extra traffic - those who do not have a car will need to have a lot of deliveries by van, because there is no supermarket close by, nor are there any fast food outlets in Ouseburn, leading to food delivery by motor vehicle. It is already almost impossible to get out of Tyne St onto City Road at busy times. The area cannot sustain all the extra traffic, whether it is private cars or deliveries. * Noise: the closest access from City Road will be down Horatio Street, which is cobbled. This is a noise nuisance for residents in High Quay and Mariners Wharf, especially at night, mitigated by the fact that currently it only serves Mariners Wharf. With 58 more dwellings and all their deliveries, there will be more traffic on Horatio St causing more noise nuisance. * Environmental impact: the height of the 10 storey tower will be higher than the top of the spire of the historic Sailors Bethel a few yards away, and will block the view of it from the quayside. And since the tower is only just outside the Ouseburn conservation area, on its south side, the tower block will cast a shadow onto the conservation area itself, limiting enjoyment of all aspects the Ouseburn area. All these objections stem from the inclusion of the tower block - if the tower was deleted from the plan, leaving only the town houses, I would drop my objections. If the Malmo Quay site is not commercially viable without this very high density housing, then it should be concluded that it is not commercially viable for housing, and should be turned into a public park as was intended by the original East Quayside Development Plan of the late 1980s. | 22/04/2025 | Object |
| I''d like to object to this application as the ouseburn and quayside areas are being overdeveloped and losing their character. The scale and height of this proposal in particular seems excessive. This will block the view from the iconic Free Trade Inn which is one of the last few traditional Tyneside pubs in the city and part of the original industrial heritage of the area. | 22/04/2025 | Object |
| I''d like to object to this application as the ouseburn and quayside areas are being overdeveloped and losing their character. The scale and height of this proposal in particular seems excessive. This will block the view from the iconic Free Trade Inn which is one of the last few traditional Tyneside pubs in the city and part of the original industrial heritage of the area. | 22/04/2025 | Object |
| This development would dramatically change the nature of the area, and would be devastating to the local economy. Both the Free Trade Inn and the Tyne Bar in particular would suffer, as would anyone who enjoys visiting these businesses, or the area as a whole. It is also ugly as sin, and for the wealthy only. | 22/04/2025 | Object |
| The application should not be granted. Blight on the landscape of the area at the mouth of the Ouseburn. The size of the tower building is excessive and is niot in keeping with the natural area. If a tower has to be built you should consider the Spillers site. There has not been sufficient research on the effect of the site on infrastructure. There are not enough carparking facilities and no thought has been given to access to schools/nurseries in the vacinity. I urge the counil to reject this applicvation. | 22/04/2025 | Object |
| The application should not be granted. Blight on the landscape of the area at the mouth of the Ouseburn. The size of the tower building is excessive and is niot in keeping with the natural area. If a tower has to be built you should consider the Spillers site. There has not been sufficient research on the effect of the site on infrastructure. There are not enough carparking facilities and no thought has been given to access to schools/nurseries in the vacinity. I urge the counil to reject this applicvation. | 22/04/2025 | Object |
| The application should not be granted. Blight on the landscape of the area at the mouth of the Ouseburn. The size of the tower building is excessive and is niot in keeping with the natural area. If a tower has to be built you should consider the Spillers site. There has not been sufficient research on the effect of the site on infrastructure. There are not enough carparking facilities and no thought has been given to access to schools/nurseries in the vacinity. I urge the counil to reject this applicvation. | 22/04/2025 | Object |
| The application should not be granted. Blight on the landscape of the area at the mouth of the Ouseburn. The size of the tower building is excessive and is niot in keeping with the natural area. If a tower has to be built you should consider the Spillers site. There has not been sufficient research on the effect of the site on infrastructure. There are not enough carparking facilities and no thought has been given to access to schools/nurseries in the vacinity. I urge the counil to reject this application. | 22/04/2025 | Object |
| The height of the tower block is still totally inappropriate for this location and will dwarf nearby buildings. Sightlines will be ruined along the quayside and from the Free Trade. The lower rise buildings are more acceptable and seem to improve the level of amenities in the area. Lack of parking is a concern though, as is the likelihood that this development will just become an Air BNB party location for stags and hens etc. | 24/04/2025 | Object |
| I believe the proposed development may impact the visual aesthetics of the area, blocking direct sight to the river from further away. The proposed multistorey building being built on a plot of land that juts out in to the river doesn''t align with the general surroundings of the area, where we see the buildings set back, allowing a direct, un-interrupted view to the river, something which is part of the unique appeal and character of the area. | 24/04/2025 | Object |
| The "Public Benefits Statement" is a pack of spin, in some places blatant lies. This is a development for a small number of rich people (the PBS admits that) which is massively outweighed by the significant environmental, community, and cultural damage that this eyesore will cause. | 24/04/2025 | Object |
| I had filled out a much more detailed objecting to this application, but the site crashed. This is unacceptable. FYI there is no Ian Cansfield at Cundall. The application is erroneous. | 24/04/2025 | Object |
| I wish to register my strong objection to the above-referenced planning application. 1. Visual and Heritage Impact • Obstruction of iconic views: The proposed 10-storey apartment block would dominate and irreversibly spoil the cherished vista from the Free Trade Inn, a pub of immense local value. Patrons enjoy unhindered sightlines of the Tyne; this development would create a monolithic barrier, undermining that experience. • Wider riverside views: From both north and south bank vantage points, the riverside panorama—including historic shipyards and existing low-rise architecture—would be overshadowed. This heavy, vertical massing is entirely alien to the fine grain, riverside character of Ouseburn. 2. Inappropriate Scale and Massing • Out of context: The surrounding buildings are predominantly 2–4 storeys. A 10-storey tower rises far above established rooflines, creating a jarring and discordant skyline. • Overbearing to the street: Such height and bulk will overwhelm the public realm, casting extensive shadows over pavements, quayside amenity spaces, and river walks, diminishing comfort and safety for pedestrians. 3. Community Needs and Cultural Significance • Misplaced priorities: Ouseburn’s identity is defined by music venues, galleries, breweries and riverside events—not by additional residential blocks. We already face under-utilised cultural spaces; adding 43 new flats (plus up to 80 dwellings in outline) exacerbates housing oversupply without addressing critical gaps in leisure, performance, or community facilities. • Economic impact on local businesses: By turning this vibrant quarter into a residential enclave, footfall for bars, studios and creative businesses may dwindle—due to stricter residential amenity controls—threatening the very cultural ecosystem the scheme claims to support. 4. Positive Proposal for the Cycle Hub Site I do support redevelopment of the existing Cycle Hub footprint and the rest of the spillers quay. As long as this maintains public access, incorporates a café and workshop, and housing in an unused site that would enhance active travel, social interaction, and the unique creative energy of the Ouseburn valley without harming key views or scale relationships. My objections with the current plan are its obscene size and impact on current valued cultural venues. | 24/04/2025 | Object |
| My feelings • Inappropriate size for the area • Tyne bar existing music scene – don’t want it to go the way of the cockpit • Not in keeping with the design of the area • Wholly inappropriate development that detracts from the current usage and does not provide any benefits other than housing. The housing also will be unaffordable for many and so is not useful housing either. PfP Igloo state that without the tower block the development will not be financially viable… what are their margins and why is this a for profit venture? These penthouses will not be for first time buyers, or single parent families, or new immigrants. This is bourgeois housing stock, much like the Malings and the steenberg yards houses. The council would do well to keep their fingers on the pulse of the nation, the housing crisis will only continue & this development is nothing but a cash grab and will not alleviate the actual problems the vast majority of people have. It is the type of development the cynically and sickly finds a “view” and builds something so as to give that view to a very few people whilst stealing it from a bigger majority of people who enjoy that view at the current time. • Building a business space is another attempt at profit extraction, the malings have stood with unused shops for years, steenbergs yard has another 5 office/shop spaces and they are all empty. This shop space may well be pointless too. The rates PfP Igloo will charge as rent will preclude a vast many numbers of businesses from being able to make use of the space. • What tenancies are the properties under? Leasehold or freehold? If the latter what will happen when the building falls into disrepair? What happens when PfP Igloo cut and run? What assurances do we have that they will use high quality materials? What of lagging? Will we have another Grenfell tower on our hands? • The demolition of spillers mill (an actual piece of history and attempted listed building) can now be called into question, or at least the premise of maintaining the history of local infrastructure can. The mill came down and development of the BEL hyperbaric chamber on spillers wharf was planned, what happened to that? Or was a large sum of money provided to keep the space for the “why-aye”? Which is definitely not in keeping with the local area, not historic by any means and is 100% another corporate cash grab. Points from NC “planning for the future 16.72” • The River Tyne and the Lower Ouseburn are parts of the Strategic Green Infrastructure Network and the Lower Ouseburn is also an important wildlife corridor which links the River Tyne to Heaton Park and Jesmond Dene. – disruption during building, fallow land is great for wildlife, especially if combined with a park. • Promoting leisure, culture and tourism that complements the existing diverse mix of uses, - this project does not fulfil this criteria. • Promoting the Ouseburn as a home for arts, cultural, media uses, the creative sector and small-to-medium scale development that sustains and enhances the existing fine grain character – this project does not fulfil this criteria. • Promoting the re-use of vacant historic buildings to maintain the quality of the historic environment and ensure the local distinctiveness of the area is retained, - does not • Improving pedestrian and cycling access by strengthening connections to the City Centre, Byker and Gateshead, and – this project does not fulfil this criteria. • Promoting river based leisure uses to increase activity on the River Tyne and the Ouseburn River. – this project does not fulfil this criteria, especially if they build on spillers quay too where they will disenfranchise the fishing boats moored there. Instead why not build more moorings adjacent to a park with pop up spaces for selling fish? Or for going on trips up and down the river. Making a provision for the cycle hub in the new build is a cynical ploy by the company to make more money. If PfP Igloo maintain in charge of the spaces I.e. are leaseholders then what’s to say they don’t end up pricing the cycle hub out? • 16.79 National Cycle Route 72 runs through the south of the Ouseburn and it is a key pedestrian and cycle link to the Quayside. It is part of the ‘Coast to Coast’ and Hadrian’s Cycle Way routes and is one of the most popular routes in the country with approximately 15,000 cycle trips a year. The provision of a cycle route along Ford Street and Foundry Lane, supported by the proposals at Byker Bank and Cut Bank, will link Hadrian’s Way with the existing route along Byker Bridge – this project does not fulfil this criteria. • 16.81 The Quayside and Ouseburn’s built environment is defined by distinctive buildings many of which are historic, of different sizes and orientations. This creates a unique area and it is important that development respects the topography of the Gorge and sustains and enhances the historic character of the Quayside and Ouseburn. – this development does not flow at all, it completely contradicts the current flow of the quayside developments. The valley side at the moment represents a sweeping but stepped sloping down towards the Ouseburn mouth. From the Lime square apartments passed the Sailors Bethel (a heritage site that will be obstructed from all natural morning light if this development goes ahead) down to the William Coulson statue, finally settling on Malmo quay. This development is not recognise the local topography in the slightest. • 16.82 Variety in the scale and footprint of buildings are key elements that contribute to the Lower Ouseburn Valley Conservation Area’s character and appearance and development must enhance and reveal the significance of the historic urban grain. The topography of the Valley is a key characteristic of the area and this will determine the appropriate scale and height of buildings. – variety and scale are absolutely fine to have but as above in 16.81 the variety is not exciting and the scale is completely out of turn. • 16.83 The River Tyne and the Ouseburn River are the defining features of the Sub-Area. The completion of the barrage in the Ouseburn and improvements to the quay wall on the Quayside has enabled the promotion of leisure and recreation activities on both rivers. Developing access to the rivers edge will help to increase activity which is important for the Sub-Area’s vitality – turning currently openly accessible land into a tower block and some houses does not help achieve this. • 16.84 Improvements to the public realm have been vital to the Quayside’s renaissance. The area was transformed by the creation of high quality public realm along the edge of the River Tyne together with the provision of new spaces as part of developments. Most recently the NE1 Business Improvement District, has provided a number of temporary spaces such as the Quayside Beach. Improvements to the public spaces in the Ouseburn include the Ouseburn Village Green and new footpaths and associated landscaping improvements along the east side of the river. This route forms a continuous link along the East Bank to the Toffee factory and the Village Green. – blocked by soon to be private land • 16.85 The River Tyne and Ouseburn River are key parts of the Strategic Green Infrastructure Network and host to a range of biodiversity. The Tyne River Mudflats are valuable habitats and designated as a Site of Nature Conservation Importance. The Lower Ouseburn Valley is an important wildlife habitat and its attributes make it a unique urban environment. Improvements to the river’s edge will assist in reinforcing the Lower Ouseburn as Newcastle’s most significant wildlife corridor. – don’t develop the land, make it into a semi-reclaimed park with pop up shops for everyone to enjoy • 16.87 Development will be expected to make provision for green infrastructure and/or public space. The extent of the provision will be determined on a site by site basis and will range from the inclusion of planting as part of the development to the creation of a new public space. The list of sites included in the policy is not an exhaustive list and as development opportunities arise further sites will be identified. Although the priority for the Ouseburn is to improve existing spaces, there is potential to provide a range of new spaces that will assist in creating a lively and vibrant urban neighbourhood. As part of the redevelopment of Malmo Quay a new public space will be located at the mouth of the Ouseburn. There is potential to create a series of linked small spaces along the riverside which would create a high quality route from the mouth of the Ouseburn to the central area. – taking an already excellent and large green space, filling it with concrete ad creating pollution in the process to replace it with a smaller green space that can only be enjoyed by a few is a real cognitive jump. • 16.89 The Ouseburn River can only accept a limited amount of surface water run off before there is an increased risk of fluvial flooding. Developments will be expected to control, separate and minimise surface water run off and include mitigation measures such as SuDS. Once the Ouseburn River threshold for surface water run off has been reached, developers will be required to manage surface water on site or seek other solutions to surface water management. – what plans do Pfp Igloo have for dealing with the decreased groundwater flow due to them tarmacking what is currently a soil covered (and therefore more permeable to groundwater flow) area? From National Planning Policy Framework • 130. Planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments: a) will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; - what is PfP Igloo’s longterm plan for maintaining the site? Does not currently provide any quality to the area, only detracts. • b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; - failed on all 3 accounts • c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities); - appropriate innovation is great, the Malings? Great. Steenbergs Yard also a nice development. This, not great by any stretch. • e) optimise the potential of the site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks; - minimal effort attempt to provide a token green space after destroying a much bigger one. • f) create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users49; and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience – look at how many objections you have to this development, look at how many of them suggest a park for everyone to enjoy… there’s your answer to what the site should be. Currently the Ouseburn area is a happy place to live and work for many, the view and the open space is one of the prime reasons for the blessing to mental health that is the Ouseburn valley. This development seeks to take those views and open spaces from hundreds of thousands if not millions of people a year so that they can make money off some bourgeois penthouses by giving that view and space to the rich. • 131. Trees make an important contribution to the character and quality of urban environments, and can also help mitigate and adapt to climate change. Planning policies and decisions should ensure that new streets are tree-lined50, that opportunities are taken to incorporate trees elsewhere in developments (such as parks and community orchards), that appropriate measures are in place to secure the long-term maintenance of newly-planted trees – make the space into a green area, not concrete. • 134. Development that is not well designed should be refused, especially where it fails to reflect local design policies and government guidance on designs – I could’ve saved 2000 words by just posting this one single point. • 136. The quality and character of places can suffer when advertisements are poorly sited and designed. – You can stick a pin in this one for the “why-eye” • 159. Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk (whether existing or future). Where development is necessary in such areas, the development should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere. – what is the lifetime as expected by PfP Igloo? - Within 50 years we could be looking at 2m of sea level rise. • 174. Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: a) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils (in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan); - this is a valued landscape right here. • d) minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures; - currently the area is home to urban foxes, otters, swans and a whole variety of wading birds and wildfowl. The current fallow land has been seen to be a place of congregation for many of these species. The malmo development would not minimise impact and certainly wouldn’t provide a net gain for biodiversity. • 189. Heritage assets range from sites and buildings of local historic value to those of the highest significance, such as World Heritage Sites which are internationally recognised to be of Outstanding Universal Value. These assets are an irreplaceable resource, and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations. – the view is heritage, the view is iconic. The space should be made into something that everyone can enjoy and where everyone can enjoy the literal space it provides. They can build a tower in the city centre with the rest of them. • 190. Plans should set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. This strategy should take into account: a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; b) the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that conservation of the historic environment can bring; c) the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness; and d) opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to the character of a place. –This is a working class area and that heritage should be appreciated. The only reason a company like this can come in and brazenly think this tower and this development “draw on the contribution made by the historic environment” is ridiculous. Hard work built the quayside and now they want to ride on it’s coattails This objection reads almost verbatim to the last objection I made against PfPIgloos last attempt to capitalise and asset strip the land. Currently the space is used for common good and supports the local community and wider. A truly cynical and pathetic attempt to milk the land for their own gain. We are told that loss of view is not a valid complaint to base an objection on and yet why do PfP want to build a 10 story flat here? FOR THE VIEW!! Absolute hypocrisy. Privatise the views and the space and give them to the highest bidders. Lets also not forget that these are expensive flats that local people will be priced out of. The 7 houses of the "Ropery" stand mostly empty after their highly over inflated attempt to gentrify the area with offers upwards of £550,000 being advertised before they became a local laughing stock. Truly a pathetic stone toss by PfPIgloo. Its clear they have no interest in the sites best interests. | 25/04/2025 | Object |
| While it seems inevitable (and in some ways desirable compared to the current wasteland - though simply tidying this up and making it into a garden of some sort with paths through and perhaps a sculpture would be my preference) that developing this area will happen, in doing so there is a lot to lose. And something to protect. What the councils have done with the Millennium Bridge, Gateshead Quays, NGI City beach etc is wonderful. Its a fantastic amenity aree, you should seek to expand this and not confine it. The open space (a premium in the city) will be lost and events such as Tall Ships, Evolution, Big Wheel etc will never be able to happen again. That said, if it has to be developed then so be it, but there are issues with it, espcially in regard to the proximity to the quay edge. The neare the quay edge they build, the less attractive the amenity will be. If you consider the existing Mariners Wharf there is a section where only an approximate 10 feet path for people to Navigate. This is (as well as being the worst part of the entire quay from an aesthetic point of view, is a bottle neck. Try getting past someoen with a dog or a double buggy. It limits the amount of people that can use the quay without issues. SO it is with the new development. In the plans there seems to be a not particularly high density of development (its not just a big block of flats), but the majority of space not given over to building seems to be between the first line (quayside) and second line of the buildings. In other words, the view and sense of space is prioritised to the occupants of the dwellings rather than the greater public, who are confined to a narrow strip between them and the quay. WHY. Make the free space at the front instead, benefitting everyone. If people want to live there and enjoy the view, the lack of a garden or a big gap between them and the other row of dwellings will not be a deal breaker. The same number of dwellings can be built. I live 12 miles from Newcastle I don''t work in the city, but I visit it weekly and I stay over in Hotels about 6 times a year. I can''t remember a time when a walk on the quayside was not included in my visit. Why, because its my favourite city in the world. This development would make it less attractive. I can''t see me stopping visiting NEwcastle beacuse of it, but Walking down to the Ouseburn I am sure I will do a lot less of that. LEAVE SOME CONSIDERABLE SPACE AT THE QUAY EDGE. AT LEAST DOUBLE WHAT IS IN THE PLANS. | 25/04/2025 | Object |
| I am conerned that the ecology surveys have not fully assessed the site in its role as the entrance to the Ouseburn Wildlife Enhancement Corridor. In particular, I''m concerned that there is no assessment of the impact of increased public use along the west edge of the Ouseburn on resting and feeding opportunities for birds and mammals along mudflats, and on the flow of the wildlife corridor and its connection to green spaces on the Gateshead side of the river, particuarly with regard to the movement of invertibrates. I ask that you reassess the site taking all this into account before proceeding with the application. | 26/04/2025 | Object |
| The tower blocks are inappropriate for the area. Nothing round them is as high. The previous application for this site had a much higher tower, presumably this application reflects the developers actual plans, hoping that this will make it seem like a concession to the large number of complaints? The development should only have low rise buildings to fit in with its environment. There is extremely limited parking available for the number of flats. And there is very limited public transport. I hope the city planners will look at how this development will affect the surrounding area, which has become something of a tourist destination. This development does very little to enhance the attraction of the Ouseburn area, and should be rethought. | 26/04/2025 | Object |
| We are regular visitors to the Lower Ouseburn area The amended application still contains a tower block albeit 10 storey rather than 18. This however is still not in keeping with the ambience and aesthetic of the lower Ouseburn and quayside area. The area attracts tourists from far and wide and this development of the tower block will negatively detract from their visitor experience and will therefore have an adverse impact on small and independent businesses | 28/04/2025 | Object |
| To whom it may concern, I am writing to object against the planned development on Malmo Quay (reference: 2021/2404/01/EIA). History and culture Newcastle quayside is iconic and is steeped in history and high-quality design. It’s enjoyed and experienced by everyone. People living in Newcastle, the North east and further afield. People remember it, tell people about it and keep returning based on their experiences. The size of the development completely dominates the landscape and takes away from some of the great buildings surrounding it, for example the Baltic, the Sage, and Millennium, Tyne, High Level and Swing Bridge. The council has described this area as “one of the most dramatic and memorable of any major place in England” - this is undone when uninspiring, large non-descript buildings tower over the icons. If we want to remain prestigious, then we must invest in quality design that compliments the surroundings. The Malmo tower block also risks the experience of local heritage sites. The lifeless beige structure takes away from the design and history built into the Toffee Factory, Sailors Bethal, Glasshouse Bridge and Grade 2 listed Ouseburn School. The tower is likely to tower over them, making them invisible to those who don''t know they are there. Using the space The quayside is used heavily for walkers, runners and cyclists. As a runner and cyclist myself I choose to run and ride along the quayside past this site because of the history and culture, however I have to choose my times wisely as the area gets busy and it’s hard to use the space affectively. This becomes much worse when you bring so many other people and traffic to the area. Hadrian’s Way (National Cycle Route 72) The cycling route is also popular and used frequently by families, commuters, local cyclists and people riding from coast to coast. We need to keep these routes free and encourage people to use them, not only to help with clean air zones and reducing carbon footprint, but to get the public moving and healthy, reducing spend on health services. We need quality green spaces (Planning for the future - Newcastle/Gateshead council). As a cyclist myself there have been many close passes on this route, directly at the site. The road often has cars on either side, making it narrow, however cars still want to overtake. Further towards The Cycle Hub and St Peter’s Basin, I’ve experience cars driving at speed, not looking at junctions or driving on the right side of the road. Parking The Ouseburn area is already short on parking, given the recent housing around the Toffee Factory that don’t have enough parking spaces. Cars are often parked mounted on curbs (making it inaccessible for anyone with a wheel or push chair) or parked on the road, making narrow roads even narrower. The Malmo plans don’t include sufficient parking spaces for the apartments, this is simply not logical. Reducing car parking spaces does not reduce the number of cars. Plans involve removing the current carpark located at The Cycle Hub and doesn’t provide an alternative. Using the area as a pedestrian or cyclist is dangerous, proven by a recent fatality where a cyclist was hit on 1 January 2022 and later died. We need to make our streets safer not just to protect residents, but to make cycling more inviting. Newcastle City Council has a responsibility and has committed to clean air zones, bringing more cars to the area without the choice of public transport or safe cycling routes goes against these policies. It also makes current residents not want to enjoy time outside or the surrounding space. Running / cycling alongside queues of traffic is not enjoyable or good for my health. Access to site There are currently no buses that pass the site and the closest metro stations involve an up hill walk over 1km away. This also forces people to have cars. There are also no continuous or safe cycling routes into the city and beyond, again not making cycling favourable over a car. Community involvement Plans should be shaped by involvement from the community (National Planning Policy Framework) and this plan has obviously not been influenced by the local community or business’. Close proximity to river The building is located close to the River Tyne, opening up a risk to flooding, river bank erosion and contamination. It’s also worth noting that every time I pass this site there is a strong smell of sewage, I assume any more stress on the system would not be sustainable or an environment people should live in. Wildlife The River Tyne and Ouseburn are not only home to humans, we need to protect the wildlife that inhabit the area. We have seen rises and falls in the wildlife over the years and we don’t want to see these plans overturn any of the improvement we’ve seen in numbers of otter, salmon and kittiwakes. Local business The Free Trade Inn and The Tyne Bar are integral business’ to the Ouseburn area, and play a big part in the community. They make Ouseburn feel alive. However when you place large building within throwing distance, you take away the atmosphere. You go from enjoying the open space to being physically shadowed and feeling closed in. The Cycle Hub isn’t just a hub by name, it houses the growth of cycling in Newcastle and Gateshead. It makes cycling accessible for everyone at all ages. It’s located in a key spot on the National Cycle Route 72 for locals and tourists. It produces a lot of traffic; cars, cyclists and pedestrians. It’s often used as a meeting spot, to start and end a ride, therefore people are driving there - if you move it to a smaller shop under a block tower it removes the accessibility of it - it stops being a cycling hub and starts being an average coffee shop with a slight cycling theme. It stops being welcoming for large group rides to start from Living in Ouseburn I don’t currently live in Ouseburn (although walk / run or cycle there almost every day). I have been considering moving to the Malings, but this becomes much less attractive with a risk of overshadowing and lack of sunlight. With all this mind, I feel strongly about the Malmo Quay plans going ahead | 29/04/2025 | Object |
| Having reviewed the information relating to the proposed development I am concerned about highway safety in the area as a result of lack of parking If the development is completed but also during construction. I am also concerned that 10 Storeys will still be the largest building at the East End of the Quayside by far and at odds with the natural lowering of height of the Tyne Gorge and Ouseburn Valley. The plan to build 58 units on Malmo and another 80 on Spillers with only 13 confirmed car parking spaces on Malmois is ludicrous. Where will residents park in an already congested area, given recent development of the Ouseburn Valley? The current application has removed the proposed ‘parking barn’ from the Spillers site, and construction on Spillers will also require the closure of the heavily used car park adjacent to the Cycle Hub. So in addition to the lack of parking for potential residents, the proposals remove significant existing parking spaces. The area is already under immense strain in regards to parking and traffic, likely to be increased with the (already granted) development of another 50 homes on St Lawrence Road, directly behind the Free Trade. The development is in complete contrast to the previous redevelopment in the Ouseburn Valley and will have a negative visual impact. | 30/04/2025 | Object |
| Having reviewed the information relating to the proposed development I am concerned about highway safety in the area as a result of lack of parking If the development is completed but also during construction. I am also concerned that 10 Storeys will still be the largest building at the East End of the Quayside by far and at odds with the natural lowering of height of the Tyne Gorge and Ouseburn Valley. The plan to build 58 units on Malmo and another 80 on Spillers with only 13 confirmed car parking spaces on Malmois is ludicrous. Where will residents park in an already congested area, given recent development of the Ouseburn Valley? The current application has removed the proposed ‘parking barn’ from the Spillers site, and construction on Spillers will also require the closure of the heavily used car park adjacent to the Cycle Hub. So in addition to the lack of parking for potential residents, the proposals remove significant existing parking spaces. The area is already under immense strain in regards to parking and traffic, likely to be increased with the (already granted) development of another 50 homes on St Lawrence Road, directly behind the Free Trade. The development is in complete contrast to the previous redevelopment in the Ouseburn Valley and will have a negative visual impact. | 30/04/2025 | Object |
| Major concern that the scale of this building still dwarves all others in the area and so is not sensitive nor in keeping with the existing environment. There’s also the negative impact of increased demand but lack of parking capacity for residents and visitors. There’s no clear reason that the developer could not consider designs of less height / stories, but is clearly still just obsessed with maximising returns on investment with no real care for the lasting negative impact this over sized, formulaic lego block will have on the area, risking a reversal in fortunes for all as congestion and housing density increase dramatically, making the area less special, less atrracrive, less desirable in the long run. If the council cares, they block this and push for more considered and sensible designs that don’t just enrich the developer. Let’s see. Based on the green belt erosion and the proliferation of bland Lego blocks all over the area, I doubt it sadly. Leon Cleife Ne7 7 an 49 Der | 30/04/2025 | Object |
| This is a notice of objection against the re-drafted proposal of the development of Malmo Quays, Ouseburn. I note from the original proposal that very little has changed to the design within the new application. The concerning issue around parking has not been addressed and only highlights the issues that this will cause. The application seeks to build 58 apartments on Malmo with only 13 confirmed parking spaces. How do the developers propose this is viable, accessible and not without issues for its residents and wider community? It also does not take into consideration emergency service access from Walker Road with the undoubtably built-up congestion that in new developments will bring. Nor does this application take into consideration the already proposed 50 residential properties proposed to be built behind the Free Trade Inn. This will cause nothing but utter chaos for all residents in the local area across the already established properties without the added increase of the further 80+58 this development proposes. What do the council and developers propose to do with the surplus of vehicles already using Spiller’s car park? Where do these get pushed in favour of development? Workers that work in and support the city rely on park-and-ride aspects of this area of the quayside and will no doubt be forced to add to traffic congestion and emission increase within the city by moving their cars citywards. Aesthetically, this is still a 10 story proposed development by far the highest along the quayside and totally out of keeping with the area or the skyline that is Newcastle quayside. Ouseburn is developing its reputation as an area of outstanding beauty and protected wildlife sanctuaries in certain areas at the mouth of the Usborne attracting families to enjoy the natural area and local amenities. These proposals will wipe this out completely adding nothing but misery and congestion. Finally, although we are not to be heard (apparently) with regards to loss of view etc. The reality of this proposal is that investors within nearby property in Ouseburn Wharf, City Peaks,and long standing nationally renowned business such as the Free Trade Inn and the Tyne Bar will only be negatively affected and will take a financial impact on investment. The developers I dare say wont care beyond their sales. | 30/04/2025 | Object |
| The tower block is too high, the parking provision is inefficient for the amount of homes. There are vacant flats on Ouseburn Wharf. This plan is unhelpful, unnecessary and does not add anything to the area. | 30/04/2025 | Object |
| The tower block is too high, the parking provision is inefficient for the amount of homes. There are vacant flats on Ouseburn Wharf. This plan is unhelpful, unnecessary and does not add anything to the area. | 30/04/2025 | Object |
| I object to this development - 10 storeys is grossly out of keeping with the existing height of buildings in the immediate area, and this will have an extremely negative impact on the neighbourhood. The siting is poor and will cause a huge amount of difficulty with access, parking and highway safety - the increase in traffic with a development of this size will exacerbate problems in an area already suffering from immense strain in this regard. The impact on the ecology of the local area also causes me great concern - the Ouseburn is key to local wildlife with regular documented sightings of breeding otters and rare birds such as sand martins. The site of this development will negatively impact the Ouseburn Wildlife Enhancement Corridor, at a time when protecting the environment should be of utmost priority. This construction would negatively impact local people, wildlife, and independent businesses, and it should not go ahead. | 30/04/2025 | Object |
| I am concerned that the development does not take into consideration the effect it will have on the community in Ouseborn, including the small business located on the quayside amd nearby. There''s already housing developments built close and they have had a massive effect on businesses like The Tyne Bar. The worry os that not only is this project going to ruin the beautiful skyline of Newcastle quayside, it will negatively affect the independent pubs, increase congestion, and negatively impact yje atmosphere. | 01/05/2025 | Object |
| Malmo and Spillers Quays Application Reference Number: 2021/2404/01/EIA Objection submitted by: Catherine Dipper, 52 High Quay, City Road, Newcastle, NE1 2PD. We have lived in the Ouseburn for about 9 years and love the area. We understood there would be further building development but it seemed reasonable to believe that new developments would enhance the area not blight it, after all such a good job has been done so far. I hope Malmo Quay does not herald the start of poor planning decisions. The Ouseburn area is fast gaining a reputation for being a ‘cool’ area, with its dynamic artist community, live music and vibrant pubs and bars, and this development could have an adverse effect on that. Malmo Quay is very close to several of these venues and complaints from residents could put an end to live music etc. A change in the character of the area could have a detrimental impact both on local businesses and reduce its attraction to both visitors and residents. The tower is still too tall, and is a very unimaginative in its design and materials. Old and new buildings complement each other at the moment but this proposed development would not. The lower buildings are also too tall, in particular the bike hub building, all of which will interrupt the view of the quayside, which is one of the best views there is of the river and quayside. This view is iconic and an asset to the city and should be preserved. There has been a marked reduction in open spaces in recent years, to the detriment of local ecology. This planning proposal deviates from Strategic Objective 09 - Ensure the development and use of land protects, sustains and enhances the quality of the natural, built and historic environment, making the Urban Core a high quality exemplar for Gateshead and Newcastle, and ensuring our communities are attractive, safe and sustainable. If this area remained a mainly green space it would benefit wildlife. It could also attract visitors to the area if it became an exhibitions area for the local artists. This mainly residential development is unlikely to attract anyone to the area. The density of the proposed development is inappropriate for this location. Malmo Quay is in NE1, a more lucrative postcode than Spillers Quay which is NE6. Consequently maybe many properties are being crammed onto the Malmo Quay site for financial reasons. A development of this size will lead to increased traffic and pressure on already inadequate roadside parking. Current residents in the area, particularly those in Mariners Wharf, will suffer from the increase in traffic and noise and a reduction in air quality. In addition, it would make dangerous cycling conditions on National Cycle route 72 which runs along the quayside. The Cycle Hub is an attractive building which it would be a shame to lose. In its present location it can serve to link the styles of existing buildings architecturally with the style of a new development. Provision for the Cycle Hub in the new development is reduced, which is a shame when we live in an era when cycling is being encouraged. Building is not the only way to stop vacant land being an eyesore. At every meeting the developers stress how difficult the site is, often saying it is the most difficult in the country. In my view this is a very good reason for not building on it. A far better use would be to create an imaginative open space, possibly an open-air exhibition space that could exploit the character of the area making use of the thriving artist and music community. This would be kinder on the natural environment and attract more visitors to the area than a residential development, thereby boosting the local businesses and economy. This proposed development would have the opposite effect and be a severe setback to the area. | 01/05/2025 | Object |
| I object to this proposed development. Firstly, I am concerned that the proposals would create a 10 storey building, significantly higher than any other buildings at that end of the quayside which will have a negative impact on the appearance of the area. The significant number of units proposed and the visual impact of the developments will have a negative impact on the historic area and preservation and respect for the existing listed buildings and bridges in the immediate proximity. The view along the river will be irreparably impaired. I have concerns relating to the environmental impacts that the developments would have on an area that has such rich wildlife. The planning application has not fully considered the impacts of the development on the Ouseburn Wildlife Enhancement Corridor. Much of this area provides invaluable resting and feeding opportunities and spaces for birds and mammals, such as Curlew and Otter. | 01/05/2025 | Object |
| I have two main objections to the proposal to build on Malmo Quay and Spiller''s Wharf. 1) As a regular user of cycle route 72 to commute into work on Newcastle''s Quayside, I am concerned about the increase in traffic along the route and the removal of the well-used car park on the propsed building sites. There are already access issues in the area and the increase in the volume of traffic due to new residences in the area presents a real problem for pedestrians and cyclists. Added to that the disruption to the route that will be caused by construction traffic during the works. This is an invaluable, relatively traffic free route for cyclists. Increased traffic in this area presents a safety issue. 2) Significant work has been done recently to improve and protect wildlife along the Ouseburn. Sand martins have returned to nest in the area and a new sand bank created. The building works and removal of open green space presents a threat to this valuable natural habitat. | 01/05/2025 | Object |
| This is already over developed with modern buildings and will remove some key open areas in the quayside. The building is too tall and will look out of place. The removal of car parking facilities will have a huge impact to the surrounding area. We need to keep more open spaces | 02/05/2025 | Object |
| Dear Planning Officer, I am writing to formally object to planning application 2021/2404/01/EIA (proposed development at Malmo Quay and Spillers Wharf, Ouseburn, Newcastle). As both a property and a business owner in the area affected by this proposed development, I have a significant stake in the future of this area. I own two properties on St Lawrence Road – numbers 25 and 100 Ouseburn Wharf – which operate as high-quality short-term accommodation under the Stay Ouseburn brand. We have hosted over 500 guest stays, consistently earning top ratings and “Guest Favourite” status on Airbnb. Our guests are drawn from across the UK and overseas by the distinctive, creative, and historic character of Ouseburn — something this proposed development would irreparably damage. One of the properties will become in a few short years my home to retire to, tempting me away after more than sixty years from my native Birmingham. Through my business, I directly contribute to local tourism, hospitality, and cultural life in Ouseburn. I receive frequent comments from guests who are charmed by the quirky, independent feel of the area, the unspoiled river views, and the relaxed, walkable neighbourhood. The proposed development threatens to undermine all of these strengths, and in doing so, risks diminishing Ouseburn’s unique appeal as a visitor destination and harming the small businesses that depend on it. My objections focus on the following planning issues: Excessive height and scale that constitutes overdevelopment Harm to the character and setting of the Ouseburn and adjacent conservation areas Loss of public open space and community amenities Inadequate parking provision and exacerbation of traffic congestion Adverse impacts on residential amenity, including overshadowing, noise and privacy Conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), Core Strategy, and Urban Core Plan These concerns are elaborated below and supported by planning policy, local context, and other objections from stakeholders. I respectfully urge Newcastle City Council to refuse this application on sound planning grounds. 1. Excessive Height, Scale and Overdevelopment The proposed 10-storey apartment block at Malmo Quay remains excessive and out of scale with its context. It would be the tallest building in the immediate Ouseburn and East Quayside area, disrupting the prevailing mid-rise character and dominating the skyline. Core Strategy Policy CS15 requires development to respond to the “unique character and importance of the River Tyne, its tributaries and its setting.” Urban Core Plan Policy UC12 requires development to reflect topography and townscape, ensuring human scale and sense of enclosure. Policy UC13 also emphasises the need to avoid harm to key views, particularly those across the Tyne Gorge. This proposal clearly conflicts with those principles. It fails to integrate with the surrounding urban grain and topography, and it intrudes upon key views along the river corridor, particularly from the Free Trade Inn and Quayside. The massing is monolithic and contextually insensitive. The Lower Ouseburn Valley Urban Design Framework, while not formally covering this precise site, sets out a clear design ethos: development should provide legible river frontages, clear sight lines, and active public realm. The proposal ignores this guidance in both form and function. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) reinforces that development should be sympathetic to local character and history (paragraph 130), and states unequivocally in paragraph 134 that permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to reflect local policies and design codes. 2. Harm to Heritage and Local Character The site lies adjacent to the Lower Ouseburn Valley Conservation Area and forms part of the setting of numerous heritage assets, including listed buildings along City Road and the historic industrial fabric of the Ouseburn. Policies UC12 and UC13, alongside Core Strategy CS15 and NPPF paragraphs 199–202, require decision-makers to give great weight to the conservation of heritage assets and their settings. Harm to such assets requires clear and convincing justification and must be outweighed by public benefit. In this case, no exceptional public benefit has been demonstrated. The height and massing would cause permanent harm to the setting of the conservation area and key viewpoints along the Tyne Gorge, with no meaningful heritage gain or mitigation. The development risks undermining the careful, incremental regeneration that has made Ouseburn nationally recognised for its urban character and creative culture. 3. Loss of Public Open Space and Community Facilities The proposal would result in the loss of existing open space currently used for recreation, events (such as the Valentine’s funfair), visitor parking, and river-based activity including tall ship moorings. There is no equivalent replacement proposed. Moreover, the development includes the demolition of the popular Cycle Hub – a vital local business and community asset. Its temporary or permanent removal undermines sustainable travel goals and contradicts NPPF paragraph 93, which calls for the retention of valued community facilities. Urban Core Plan Policy UC3 requires that development in the Urban Core contribute to open space provision and public realm improvements. The scheme delivers neither in meaningful terms, instead converting community land to private use and diminishing the character and functionality of the waterfront. 4. Inadequate Parking and Increased Congestion The proposed development includes insufficient parking to meet demand from over 100 new homes. Local streets, including St Lawrence Road and Foundry Lane, already experience significant congestion and pressure on parking availability. The Spillers Wharf surface car park currently alleviates this pressure and serves the wider Ouseburn Valley. Its removal would displace vehicles into residential streets. There is no robust mitigation strategy proposed. The site is not well-served by public transport and lies more than 1km from Metro stations, uphill and with poor accessibility for many residents. NPPF paragraph 110 requires development to ensure safe and suitable access for all users and avoid significant impacts on the transport network. In this case, the development would likely worsen conditions for cyclists and pedestrians, particularly given the site’s position along National Cycle Route 72. 5. Adverse Residential Amenity and Environmental Impacts The height and scale of the proposal would overshadow adjacent homes and businesses, leading to loss of light, privacy, and outlook. This is contrary to Local Plan Policy DM20, which protects residential amenity. There are also concerns that increased noise and traffic from the development would harm the existing amenity of the area. Conversely, new residents may introduce complaints against long-established venues such as The Tyne Bar, which regularly hosts live music. Without robust design mitigation, this development could create future conflict, undermining the area''s cultural assets. Construction-phase impacts, including dust, vibration, and HGV movement, also require close scrutiny, particularly given the constrained road network and sensitive riverside environment. 6. Policy and Procedural Concerns The development conflicts with several key policies: CS15: Fails to respond to the character of the Tyne UC12/UC13: Poor relationship to topography, townscape, views, and heritage UC3: Inadequate open space and public realm benefit DM20: Harm to amenity NPPF (paragraphs 93, 130, 134, 199–202): Failure to preserve heritage, character, and design quality Furthermore, the Ouseburn Urban Design Framework – while technically not covering the site – is clearly undermined in spirit. Allowing the proposal to proceed would create a precedent for over-scaled, insensitive design in the Ouseburn and East Quayside. The application delivers no affordable housing and minimal demonstrable public benefit. Its justification appears largely financial, rather than rooted in public need or policy alignment. Conclusion For the reasons outlined – excessive height and overdevelopment, harm to heritage setting, loss of public amenity, traffic and parking impacts, and breach of planning policy – I respectfully object to application 2021/2404/01/EIA and request that the Council refuse the proposal. I would welcome a revised proposal that reflects Ouseburn’s unique character and offers a balanced, sustainable contribution to the area. Until then, this application should not proceed. Thank you for considering my objection. Please confirm receipt and ensure it is formally recorded. Clive Reeves | 02/05/2025 | Object |
| The planning portal has not been working so it has been difficult to view the full details, however I would like to object to the above application on the following grounds: - The size and design of the Malmo development is not in keeping with the rest of the Quayside and Ouseburn areas. In particular the tower block would be taller than anything else in the area which generally get smaller the further they are from the city centre. - The inclusion of the large tower appears to have been included only to make the project profitable without any consideration of the impact on the area. - The additional residential buildings are likely to add to the existing parking and traffic issues on busy walking and cycling routes, especially if the already busy car park at Spillers Quay is removed. - Construction traffic would add to the traffic issues in the area. - The above traffic issues would also likely increase noise and pollution which would be detrimental to the area. - Access to the area is extremely limited via Horatio Street or St Lawrence Road. - The tower will be significantly higher than the other buildings in the area and will create overshadowing issues, especially to the southern end of Ouseburn valley which the tower appears to be directly south of. - Removal of green space on Malmo Quay. - Little information is available for the Spillers Quay development - Significant impact on wildlife around both Quays and the mouth of the Ouseburn | 02/05/2025 | Object |
| I live in the NE6 area of Newcastle and I’m writing to formally object to planning application 2021/2404/01/EIA concerning the proposed development at Malmo and Spillers Quays. As a local resident who frequents the Ouseburn area on a weekly basis, I am deeply concerned about the scale, density, and overall impact of the development on this unique part of the city, which is popular with locals and tourists alike because of its current look. This new application remains largely unchanged from the previous proposal, and many of my original concerns remain unaddressed (some have even worsened): 1. Height and Scale: The 10-storey tower at Malmo remains wholly out of character with the surrounding area. It dominates the skyline and contradicts the natural topography and visual identity of the East Quayside and Ouseburn Valley, which typically features low-rise, human-scaled buildings. Such height feels jarring and inappropriate in a conservation-focused area that values its historic and creative roots. It also makes Newcastle exactly the same as every other boring city — you should be striving to protect and champion what makes our city unique. 2. Parking and Access: The removal of the previously proposed ''parking barn'' and the provision of only 13 parking spaces for 58 residential units on the Malmo site is utterly insufficient. The already stretched local infrastructure—especially parking—will be placed under even greater pressure. The temporary or permanent closure of the Cycle Hub car park will further limit public access to an already popular area, reducing its appeal for both residents and visitors like myself, who uses this car park on a weekly basis. 3. Impact on Local Character and Community Use: Ouseburn is a vibrant, cultural hub. Its charm lies in its scale, creative spaces, and riverside community feel. Introducing high-density housing and overly modern architectural styles risks eroding the very character that draws people in. The area''s heritage and community identity must not be sidelined in the name of maximising profit, and it’s quite frankly disgusting that we even need to submit objections…it should be abundantly clear what the values are of this area, and that this development is completely at odds with this. 4. Environmental Concerns: I share the concerns raised by Wild Ouseburn regarding the ecological impact. Increased urban development threatens local biodiversity and wildlife habitats, which have long been valued features of the area. In summary, this application does not reflect or respect the needs of the local community. It feels corporate, bland, and imposed rather than integrated. Development should enhance and support the existing environment, not overpower it. I urge you to reconsider or require substantial revision of the proposal to ensure it is aligned with the unique character and capacity of the Ouseburn area. Don’t lose sight of what’s important for our community and for encouraging tourism to the area. | 02/05/2025 | Object |
| I live in the NE6 area of Newcastle and I’m writing to formally object to planning application 2021/2404/01/EIA concerning the proposed development at Malmo and Spillers Quays. As a local resident who frequents the Ouseburn area on a weekly basis, I am deeply concerned about the scale, density, and overall impact of the development on this unique part of the city, which is popular with locals and tourists alike because of its current look. This new application remains largely unchanged from the previous proposal, and many of my original concerns remain unaddressed (some have even worsened): 1. Height and Scale: The 10-storey tower at Malmo remains wholly out of character with the surrounding area. It dominates the skyline and contradicts the natural topography and visual identity of the East Quayside and Ouseburn Valley, which typically features low-rise, human-scaled buildings. Such height feels jarring and inappropriate in a conservation-focused area that values its historic and creative roots. It also makes Newcastle exactly the same as every other boring city — you should be striving to protect and champion what makes our city unique. 2. Parking and Access: The removal of the previously proposed ''parking barn'' and the provision of only 13 parking spaces for 58 residential units on the Malmo site is utterly insufficient. The already stretched local infrastructure—especially parking—will be placed under even greater pressure. The temporary or permanent closure of the Cycle Hub car park will further limit public access to an already popular area, reducing its appeal for both residents and visitors like myself, who uses this car park on a weekly basis. 3. Impact on Local Character and Community Use: Ouseburn is a vibrant, cultural hub. Its charm lies in its scale, creative spaces, and riverside community feel. Introducing high-density housing and overly modern architectural styles risks eroding the very character that draws people in. The area''s heritage and community identity must not be sidelined in the name of maximising profit, and it’s quite frankly disgusting that we even need to submit objections…it should be abundantly clear what the values are of this area, and that this development is completely at odds with this. 4. Environmental Concerns: I share the concerns raised by Wild Ouseburn regarding the ecological impact. Increased urban development threatens local biodiversity and wildlife habitats, which have long been valued features of the area. In summary, this application does not reflect or respect the needs of the local community. It feels corporate, bland, and imposed rather than integrated. Development should enhance and support the existing environment, not overpower it. I urge you to reconsider or require substantial revision of the proposal to ensure it is aligned with the unique character and capacity of the Ouseburn area. Don’t lose sight of what’s important for our community and for encouraging tourism to the area. | 02/05/2025 | Object |
| I live in the NE6 area of Newcastle and I’m writing to formally object to planning application 2021/2404/01/EIA concerning the proposed development at Malmo and Spillers Quays. As a local resident who frequents the Ouseburn area on a weekly basis, I am deeply concerned about the scale, density, and overall impact of the development on this unique part of the city, which is popular with locals and tourists alike because of its current look. This new application remains largely unchanged from the previous proposal, and many of my original concerns remain unaddressed (some have even worsened): 1. Height and Scale: The 10-storey tower at Malmo remains wholly out of character with the surrounding area. It dominates the skyline and contradicts the natural topography and visual identity of the East Quayside and Ouseburn Valley, which typically features low-rise, human-scaled buildings. Such height feels jarring and inappropriate in a conservation-focused area that values its historic and creative roots. It also makes Newcastle exactly the same as every other boring city — you should be striving to protect and champion what makes our city unique. 2. Parking and Access: The removal of the previously proposed ''parking barn'' and the provision of only 13 parking spaces for 58 residential units on the Malmo site is utterly insufficient. The already stretched local infrastructure—especially parking—will be placed under even greater pressure. The temporary or permanent closure of the Cycle Hub car park will further limit public access to an already popular area, reducing its appeal for both residents and visitors like myself, who uses this car park on a weekly basis. 3. Impact on Local Character and Community Use: Ouseburn is a vibrant, cultural hub. Its charm lies in its scale, creative spaces, and riverside community feel. Introducing high-density housing and overly modern architectural styles risks eroding the very character that draws people in. The area''s heritage and community identity must not be sidelined in the name of maximising profit, and it’s quite frankly disgusting that we even need to submit objections…it should be abundantly clear what the values are of this area, and that this development is completely at odds with this. 4. Environmental Concerns: I share the concerns raised by Wild Ouseburn regarding the ecological impact. Increased urban development threatens local biodiversity and wildlife habitats, which have long been valued features of the area. In summary, this application does not reflect or respect the needs of the local community. It feels corporate, bland, and imposed rather than integrated. Development should enhance and support the existing environment, not overpower it. I urge you to reconsider or require substantial revision of the proposal to ensure it is aligned with the unique character and capacity of the Ouseburn area. Don’t lose sight of what’s important for our community and for encouraging tourism to the area. | 02/05/2025 | Object |
| As residents of Ouse Street we do not object to a development in principle but have five specific objections which we believe need to be addressed: 1. The application makes no attempt to retain one of the last accessible grass spaces along the north bank of the river. All over the world progressive cities are benefiting from restoring green spaces essential for both individual well being and air pollution mitigation. Yet Newcastle City Council is moving in the opposite direction and is willing to remove all trace of open grass from a nearly 2 mile stretch of its river frontage. There is a small private lawn in front of the adjacent existing flats but it does not have public access. We believe that the development should not be approved without some provision of public access green space being retained. 2. The height of the new Cycle Hub building is unnecessarily high, of little architectural merit, and blocks a unique and iconic view up river of the Tyne bridges. We believe that restricting the height to two stories would not affect the usefulness of the building as the current Hub only utilises 2 floors. The proposed height seems deliberately antagonistic to all who currently enjoy this classic view of our city. 3. We appreciate the developer’s desire that new residents will not be car owners, but experience shows this is unrealistic. Insufficient thought has been given to managing vehicle access to 80 new dwellings along with access to existing flats, the Steenberg parking, and the new Spillers Yard development. Reducing the current road to effectively a single carriageway will inevitably result in congestion. The width of the road is already compromised by the inadequate length of the existing parking spaces which results in parked cars at the adjacent flats inevitably protruding onto the road. 4. We are concerned that Igloo Pfp have not recently demonstrated that they are a fit and proper developer to manage this sensitive development. As purchasers of a new flat in Igloo''s Lower Steenberg Yard, we have endured three years of major construction errors and failed remedial work. Over three years on, and at the time of writing, we are still waiting for the last of a serious of major snagging repairs to be undertaken. 5. Igloo also failed to fulfil their landscaping obligations in Lower Steenberg Yard. Again three years on, the residents have had to voluntarily undertake proper stocking of the planters, many of which were left completely empty by Igloo and their contractors. We note that the Malmo plans include several trees and some amenity planting so we need guarantees that the Council will enforce compliance from Igloo, as they have not done so with Lower Steenberg Yard. 6. As local residents we are aware of the permanent sewage smell from the drains adjacent to the site. And recently there was considerable work to repair a broken pipe to the treatment plant which involved construction plant taking up considerable areas of the Malmo site. We hope that the new Malmo residents will not mind living with this unpleasant environmental smell and the prospect of major disruption in the case of similar maintenance. | 02/05/2025 | Object |
| Having reviewed the documents relating to the Malmo Quay and Spillers Quay application, I feel compelled to object on several grounds, each of which relates to the broader question of what kind of urban change we wish to enable in this part of Newcastle. Firstly, the proposed scale of the development, and in particular the height of the tallest building, represents a significant departure from the established character of the area. Even with the reduction from 18 to 10 storeys, the tower remains substantially taller than neighbouring buildings, and the Council’s own Landscape Officer has described the visual impact as “moderate to major adverse.” This is not a marginal intervention: it is a decisive reordering of the skyline, one that risks overwhelming the subtle interplay of river, street, and sky that characterises the Quayside and Ouseburn. The application’s own Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment acknowledges that key views will be fundamentally altered, and public feedback continues to reflect deep discomfort with the scale and massing proposed. Secondly, the issue of density cannot be reduced simply to the number of units delivered. The proposal would introduce 138 new dwellings to a relatively constrained site, a significant intensification in a neighbourhood already facing pressure on infrastructure and public space. While the application points to the benefits of brownfield regeneration, it is not clear that the area’s transport links, parking, or local services have the capacity to absorb this level of growth without adverse consequences. The minimal provision for car parking, for example, may align with policy aspirations for sustainable transport, but it does not reflect the practical realities of connectivity in this part of the city. Most pressing, however, is the question of housing need. Newcastle is currently facing what the Council has described as a “crisis point” in housing affordability, with over 10,000 families experiencing housing stress and average property prices significantly outstripping local incomes. The application foregrounds the delivery of “aspirational” homes, but offers little detail on the proportion of affordable or social housing to be provided. This is not a neutral omission: it is a substantive policy failing, especially in light of the city’s stated priorities and the acute need for genuinely accessible housing. In privileging high-value apartments and townhouses, the scheme risks further entrenching patterns of exclusion and gentrification, rather than responding to the lived realities of the existing community. Finally, while the application makes reference to biodiversity net gain and public realm improvements, these benefits must be weighed against the irreversible changes to the area’s landscape and social fabric. The proposed green spaces, though positive in principle, are fragmented and secondary to the dominant built mass, and the loss of existing open character cannot be fully mitigated by landscaping alone. While I acknowledge the ambition to transform a long-vacant site, I remain unconvinced that the current scheme is sufficiently responsive to the spatial, social, and economic context of the Quayside. The development as proposed is too large and too high for its setting, risks overpopulating the area, and does not provide the kind of housing that local people actually need. I would urge a reconsideration of both scale and housing mix, grounded in a more nuanced understanding of local needs and a genuine engagement with the existing character of the area. | 02/05/2025 | Object |
| I believe that this proposal''s tower block is not in keeping with the rest of the area, and the renderings that have been produced are not a good enough indication of what impact this may have on the area. There are no images of the proposed spillers development either, which leads me to believe that the developers are trying to hide something. We need transparency. The proposal removes a popular car park which does a lot to alleviate this strain of visiting traffic, to replace it with something that is going to increase the traffic burden....it makes zero sense. It is concerning that there does not seem to be anywhere near enough parking allowed for the amount of housing being built, in an area which is already under traffic strain from increased housing and businesses in the last few years. There is also the issue of noise. We have constantly seen long-standing social establishments come under scrutiny when residential accommodations are built nearby, with noise complaints from residents. Why are these brand new residents given so much room for complaint when the pubs, bars, venues and others have operated for many years without problem? This is a huge concern in an already strained hospitality environment when so many businesses are struggling to make ends meet. I can''t see this development happening without at least some of this kind of things happening. If this development does go ahead, will the council ensure that the local businesses are at least consulted and given some kind of help to make allowances? My gut feeling is no, and that is a disgrace. This site is also at the entrance to the Ouseburn Wildlife Enhancement Corridor and it is concerning that there does not seem to have been a proper ecology survey carried out to assess the impact that higher traffic and footfall will have on the area. | 02/05/2025 | Object |
| I wish to object to the plans for Malmo and Spillers development. I have also emailed my objections. I live and work in the Ouseburn. There are many positives about how the Ouseburn is developing but there are lots of parking issues that have come with it. Every new housing development brings more cars - often at least 2 per flat. It is inconceivable that someone could propose a development of 10 stories if they are only able to allocate 13 cars. If there isn’t even an attempted nod towards some kind of sufficient provision then surely they need to make the development much smaller. If the car park that is next to the Cycle Hub is removed what will happen to all the cars that park there? I used to work in the amazing Toffee Factory. Where will everyone park from there? And also all the other surrounding businesses? Removing the existing provision without any replacement may dramatically remove the number of businesses who want to be in the area as they also need some parking provision for not only employees but for visiting clients. Losing the larger businesses will also have impact on the other business in the Ouseburn that service them and their employees - cafes, restaurants, bars and shops. I’d also be interested to know the proposed routes for visiting and residents’ vehicles to travel to and from the development. This includes delivery vehicles and of course construction vehicles. Horatio Street is a cobbled street and has associated noise pollution even with the existing traffic. St Lawrence Road is becoming quite a dangerous road now because of the sheer number of business involving vehicles and numerous huge van/truck deliveries as a consequence. It can’t accommodate becoming even more of an access road to the Quayside as it is often down to one very tight lane to drive through most of the time. The proposed 10 storey tower is totally out of keeping with all of the other buildings in this area. It goes against the principle of having lower buildings as they progress eastwards. It will visually overpower the beautiful area at the mouth of the Ouseburn, the Tyne Gorge and Ouseburn Valley. The Ouseburn seems to be an area that is bringing more and more tourism to the city so to put a 10 story building that would destroy the charm of the area and scenic views seems to go against any tourism aspirations. I understand views are something that are very difficult to protect but tourists go to particular areas to see specific views and take pictures to share which in then bring more people to the area and its businesses. It is not just places like the Free Trade and Tyne Bar that benefit from its amazing views it is a lot of the surrounding local businesses. That not only includes bars, restaurants, shops but also all the cultural and music places the Ouseburn is famous for. The local artists also benefit too from the tourism and people''s love of the area and its charm and views. I think it will also have a detrimental impact on the wildlife in the area and I understand Wild Intrigue have explained that in more detail. | 02/05/2025 | Object |
| I''m concerned that the ecology assessment has not been thorough enough for this site, especially with regard to its effects on the Ouseburn Wilidlfe Enhancement Corridor. The regeneration of Ouseburn''s wildlife and ecology is a significant element of its recent popularity (and my personal love for it!) and it seems poorly thought out to risk this in the long-term for the sake of more high-price residential blocks on the quayside. I''m also concerned about the disparity of car parking spaces to residential flats given in the current plans. While I''m aware that some of the most recent strain on quayside traffic is due to temporary works on the Tyne Bridge, the area is extremely strained in terms of traffic management already, particularly in terms of parking. It seems unrealistic to hope that out of 58 residential units in Malmo, only 13 would need to park a car nearby. Given the controversy over the plans with the unusual height of the tower block for the area (as the current buildings gradually decrease in height along the gorge) and the placement of the Riverside Cafe, which seems almost perfectly positioned to block off one of the most popular views of the iconic bridges in the East end of Newcastle, I''m not convinced a development this large is necessary for the site or worthwhile for the local community. | 02/05/2025 | Object |
| My objections are as follows - The physical size and appearance of the entire development will negatively impact the area around it, with the development containing what would be largest building at this end of the quayside. Additionally the style of the buildings in the development are incongruous with any other surrounding buildings. The proposed loss of the Cycle Hub on the Spiller’s site would be a massive loss to the community with no adequate replacement provided, as it provides a key leisure facility to the surrounding area and to visitors to Newcastle. The impact on parking availability and highway safety would be severe - the mention of only 13 new spaces being provided, presumably for residents only. The closure of the Spillers car park would be another blow to parking availability, as even with part of the space currently closed off, it provides an essential place to park for visitors and commuters alike. | 02/05/2025 | Object |
| I think this building would damage the local area. The Ouseburn area is already heavily built up, the profile of the buildings is not in keeping with the surrounding area, there is a peaceful gorgeous clear view of the Newcastle that patrons of local business enjoy, community members enjoy walking through the area and the open space. Not only that, but access to this area would be challenging. The current infrastructure just about supports the car use there, I would be concerned that the local road infrastructure can not support that increase of traffic that comes with that volume of residential housing. . | 02/05/2025 | Object |
| As someone who lives near this area and has followed the development of this space over the last few years, It is surprising to see still such a large amount of tower blocks being added to this small space. While I completely understand they are spaces that should be developed - particularly the space where the car park is, the area with the large tower block seems like it will extremely impact what Ouseburn was supposed to be. While the developments past Tyne bar have had a lot of consideration of nature, and improving the space, this new development seems to only consider adding as many flats as possible in the smallest pace possible. There is a lack of consideration of how this will impact foot traffic, car traffic, and the overall impact on the biodiversity. Ouseburn is rich with nature and is a large part of what makes Ouseburn stand out. This will be significantly be impacted with no flow of a nature corridor going from the tyne and through Ouseburn. The design needs some serious consideration of why does it need to be such a high block of towers - It will be an eye sore in a place that only has 3-4 height flats - it will damage privacy across the nearby spaces - it will shadow many known pubs - Traffic will make this incredibly dangerous and increase the amount of pollution in the area. Walker road is already a busy route of going into town, the amount of flats here will significantly increase this and likely increase noise pollution. - Further, as someone who lives in Ouseburn, I''ve already seen the increase of foot traffic around this space. While it is great to see lively place, the rapid amount of flats proposed in this plan will heavily impact that foot traffic. it will create an overflow to locations nearby that are simply not catered for it. The building on the car park makes sense to me - it is unused space and doesn''t contribute to nature. The smaller square of grassland where they are proposing the larger stack of flats does not make sense for the future of Ouseburn. This proposal got heavily rejected a few years a go because of the block of flats - and yet, this new proposal has barely made changes. This needs serious consideration. | 02/05/2025 | Object |
| As a resident of the Ouseburn area, I strongly object to this revised proposal. The proposed layout remains completely out of character with the location. The 10-storey tower on Malmo Quay would still be the tallest building in the East End of the Quayside and is entirely out of step with the natural lowering of building heights along the Tyne Gorge and into the Ouseburn Valley. Rather than enhancing the heritage and charm of the area, the tower and surrounding blocks would visually overpower the low-rise buildings that define the neighbourhood. The design lacks sensitivity to the industrial and cultural heritage of the Quayside and offers little in the way of contextual integration, as this high-rise would dominate the landscape and obstruct cherished views of the River Tyne. Furthermore, the proposed scheme significantly underestimates the pressure it would place on local infrastructure. Only 13 car parking spaces are confirmed for the 58 units proposed at Malmo, with no replacement for the previously proposed ‘parking barn’ on the Spillers site. Construction at Spillers will also result in the closure of a heavily used public car park adjacent to the Cycle Hub, which already supports a high volume of visitors. This will worsen congestion, reduce access for visitors and residents, and increase traffic risks on local roads, especially given the additional 50 homes recently approved on nearby St Lawrence Road. In summary, the proposed development is still inappropriate in scale, insensitive in design, and would introduce serious infrastructure pressures. I urge the Council to reject the application in its current form and demand a scheme that better respects the context, character, and needs of the Ouseburn and East Quayside communities. | 02/05/2025 | Object |
| Whilst there is much to welcome about this development, specifically around the requirement for the acoustic nature of the site being brought to buyers attention prior to purchase, and the look and feel of the site - there are a number of issues that we feel still need to be addressed. 1. Thirteen parking spaces for the whole development, of which none are for the apartment tower with the suggestion that the residents, visitors or commercial occupants ''make use of on or off street parking elsewhere in the vicinity'' - the difficulty with this is that the off street parking is being replaced by the spillers wharf development which will inevitably impact on an increase in cars parking in and around Mariners wharf despite it being permit only. 2. There is already difficulty with members of the public using the open space in front of Mariners Wharf Apartments as a walk through. There have been multiple efforts by the management company to prevent access including private property signs, these have been torn up and removed by disgruntled passers by - there have also been many instances of abuse when residents have attempted to advise members of the public that the public walk way is along the river, not in front of the apartments. The movement of the public walk through from just beyond the mariners wharf property to further into the malmo quay is likely to increase the cyclists and dog walkers cutting through mariners wharf. 3. With regard to the boundary to mariners wharf - the plan for malmo quay appears to include a patch of ground that belongs to the mariners wharf site - whilst we accept that the ground is currently a bit of a wasteground that doesn''t justify it being taken over, prohibiting the residents of mariners wharf accessing their land. 4. There are already considerable sewer odors beside the bridge, associated with drainage resulting from the Lower Steenburg Yard development, and there is concern that the current sewers will not manage further buildings - indeed within the last month the sewer broke and required Northumbrian Water spending three days digging for 24 hours with large vehicles and 24 hour lights and digging noises, to resolve things - if the site beside the Northumbrian water pumping station is built over this will limit the access to this. At 10.17 in the report it is noted that residents can keep their windows closed if the odor requires mitigating - the odors are there more often that not - i would not like to own one of these buildings as you could never open the windows 5. The mouth of the ouseburn is home to multiple types of wildlife, not limited to swans, otters, curlews and sand martins, additional urbanisation and traffic could result in this valuable wildlife corridor being lost. We have attached a photo showing the section of land included in the plan in error and included one with an image of one of the private property signs which have just been pulled off the posts. Trevor Hartley & Lynn Hartley 65 Mariners Wharf NE1 2BJ | 02/05/2025 | Object |
| As a resident of the Ouseburn area, I strongly object to the revised proposal. The overall layout remains entirely out of keeping with the character of the location. The 10-storey tower on Malmo Quay would still be the tallest building in the East End of the Quayside, clashing with the natural downward progression of building heights along the Tyne Gorge and into the Ouseburn Valley. Rather than complementing the area’s heritage and charm, the tower and its surrounding blocks would visually dominate the neighbourhood’s established low-rise character. The design shows little regard for the industrial and cultural identity of the Quayside, and the height of the tower would obstruct valued views of the River Tyne. The scheme also significantly underestimates the impact on local infrastructure. Just 13 car parking spaces are proposed for 58 units on Malmo, with no replacement for the previously planned parking barn on the Spillers site. Construction will also require closing a heavily used public car park next to the Cycle Hub—an important resource for both residents and visitors. In an area already under pressure from limited parking and traffic congestion, this proposal would only worsen access and increase road safety risks, particularly with the additional 50 homes recently approved on nearby St Lawrence Road. In summary, the development remains overly large in scale, unsympathetic in design, and likely to place significant strain on local infrastructure. I urge the Council to reject this application and instead support a development that is more in keeping with the character, capacity, and community of the Ouseburn and East Quayside. | 02/05/2025 | Object |
| The height and visual intrusiveness of the proposed development at Malmo Quay is out of keeping with the landscape/townscape character of the location and with that of the Lower Ouseburn Conservation Area which sits immediately adjacent to the development site. I therefore believe that the development is contrary to policy CS15 (Place Making) of the Local Plan. | 02/05/2025 | Object |
| I speak as a resident of Newcastle since the early 80''s and a resident of the Ouseburn Valley since 2000. I also feel the need to own up to a certain fatigue felt with responding to yet another low-expectation offering regarding these prime Quayside sites. I wish to object to the Amended proposals for Malmö & Spillers Quay, as I did to the original application made in 2021/22. Much of my objection can be interpreted within planning terms although I would leave that interpretation to the Planning Committee, preferring to make my points directly to the Committee as follows. The main driver for this approach is that, particularly for a ''lay'' resident such as myself, little purpose is served by intellectual jousting on the basis of this or that aspect of a relevant piece of policy guidance or formal description, or tallying of the number of boxes ticked: there will have been endless arguments in that regard conducted by others including numerous paid professionals. What I believe to be equally important is the human response to such proposals and those who are charged to make the democratic decision can receive and interpret them in the same spirit that they''re offered. * I''ll begin by expressing general disaatisfaction about the seemingly discreet way these amended proposals have been made available to the general public - hardly widely promoted! * in terms of appearance the designs as presently submitted do a disservice both to the City of Newcastle and to its residents and to potential visitors: this is an exceptional site (as recited time & time again, from the original Tyne Gorge study to the applicants'' own submissions not two months ago) yet the general argument used in the application appears to be that they don''t overly-transgress any guidance, and on balance represent an acceptable result; I personally find what few visuals have been made available to be uninspiring, predictable and could be sitting on any suburban riverside anywhere - hardly on the edge of the area which the council itself promotes as representing some of the best vibes Newcastle has to offer. The Quaysides (ie both sides) have become something we can all take pride in, and this site at the confluence of the Ouseburn & the Tyne is one of the potential jewels. I implore the City Council to reflect on the consequences of Liverpool''s unthinking development of some of its own waterfront, and to consider what sort of legacy we would be leaving were this present development to go ahead; * the placing of a (four-storey?) building on the very tip of the Malmö site where the quay wall turns into the Ouseburn mouth squarely obstructs the *major* view from St Lawrence Rd / Free Trade corner - see Igloo''s own illustration attached, from p7 of doc DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT / Addendum_14/02/2025; * I''ll also repeat my previous objection to the submission of the two sites together as a hybrid application - this feels a dishonest approach, instinct says that the developer is ''gaming'' the system to their own not to Newcastle''s future benefit; * the removal of the collective parking (''barn'') from the Spillers site means effectively zero additional resident parking - how can the Council justify continuing to kick this can down the road? * apparently Igloo ''remain committed to closing the low level bridge [Quayside Road] altogether'': this would permanently prevent the resumption of the Q3 or any similar service running from St Peter''s past Spillers and on to the Quayside at the Law Courts and this would be a definite loss to the area; * I maintain/repeat my objection to demolition of the present Cycle Hub, former OWSA, as a matter of principle: loss of a valuable local heritage asset, the building of which was publicly funded; * the inclusion of the ''Glasshouses'' site as an extension of the proposed CLT is a cynical attempt to sweeten the offer with something of undemonstrated, only asserted, value. I''ll end with a general appeal. Igloo has (at least in the past) prided itself on community consultation. I urge the Council as part of the JV to ask the applicant to withdraw or failing that to refuse the application, hold comprehensive and genuinely instructive public consultation, and revisit and revitalise a search for breathtaking design solutions (such as Gateshead found with the original Sage, and the Milennium Bridge) for this Malmö Quay part of the Quayside. Something the whole of Tyneside can relate to and be proud of and see as an appropriate legacy. And leave the more massive buildings for the inevitable residential demand to the more appropriate site, Spillers beyond the existing Cycle Hub site. | 02/05/2025 | Object |
| I object to the application, specifically around a few main areas. In the main the part of the site buildings (the communal area and flats that are closest to the river) block the view down the Tyne from the lower end despite the build heights being lowered from previous plans. It is uneccesary, and might be better to keep that area as green space and ensure buildings are set back from the river edge. Also the height of the tallest block of flats is not in keeping with the area, and is likely to also cause parking issues, given the number of residents in that space. I see the parking has been reduced from previous plans, so not likely to meet residential needs. The smaller buildings that are proposed seem to be much more sympathetic to the surrounding area. Given the volume of residents on the Malmo sites, it doesn''t appear that consideration has not been given to traffic control and congestion. I think this has all been said before in previous objections so not sure why it''s not been taken into account in the replanning. Overall it feels like the redevelopment is about maximising numbers of residents rather than building something that genuinely could benefit the area. It has improved a little from previous plans, but needs some more thought around it to ensure the site works with the surrounding area and doesn''t have a detrimental impact on the existing residents or the things that attract people to the Ouseburn and Quayside. | 04/05/2025 | Object |
| I object to the application, specifically around a few main areas. In the main the part of the site buildings (the communal area and flats that are closest to the river) block the view down the Tyne from the lower end despite the build heights being lowered from previous plans. It is uneccesary, and might be better to keep that area as green space and ensure buildings are set back from the river edge. Also the height of the tallest block of flats is not in keeping with the area, and is likely to also cause parking issues, given the number of residents in that space. I see the parking has been reduced from previous plans, so not likely to meet residential needs. The smaller buildings that are proposed seem to be much more sympathetic to the surrounding area. Given the volume of residents on the Malmo sites, it doesn''t appear that consideration has not been given to traffic control and congestion. I think this has all been said before in previous objections so not sure why it''s not been taken into account in the replanning. Overall it feels like the redevelopment is about maximising numbers of residents rather than building something that genuinely could benefit the area. It has improved a little from previous plans, but needs some more thought around it to ensure the site works with the surrounding area and doesn''t have a detrimental impact on the existing residents or the things that attract people to the Ouseburn and Quayside. | 04/05/2025 | Object |
| The proposal reduces further the public realm that is enjoyed by many people. More houses will put more strain on the local services and will damage further the local businesses that operate at the connecting point of ouseburn and Tyne. There is insufficient public open green space for the residents that live there currently. Public infrastructure in the area cannot cope with more demand. The development affects the views enjoyed from the top of st Lawrence road and the sightlines should be recognised as culturally significant and given appropriate protection. The transport infrastructure cannot support more residential - the development will attract 100 plus vehicles daily for those that would live there bringing additional pressure for schools, nurseries et Al. The disruption on adjacent communities eg St Peter’s basin is significant as the development will hamper our walking routes as well as highways also. The proposal to block the views from the free trade will have significant adverse impact, damaging the business, risking employment for those working in the two pubs as well as denying the people of newcastle the opportunity to enjoy the view and the overall cultural space. | 04/05/2025 | Object |
If you would like to give us feedback on our website, please complete this short online form.