Agenda item

Questions for Officers

Members sought clarity from Officers on a number of matters relating to Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) and its implications in terms of the Review of the Ryedale Plan.

Officers explained that Members of the North Yorkshire Council will be tasked with signing-off any new policy; this will include any decision about whether the Review is subsumed into the creation of a new Local Plan, or if it is ‘twin-tracked’, resulting in a standalone document. A decision on this is anticipated by 17 May 2023.

Cllr Potter expressed his support for a standalone Ryedale Plan.

Cllr Thackray expressed his desire for thorough consideration of air quality matters.

The format of the Local Plan has not been agreed. Cllr Goodrick confirmed that, as an appointee of the future Area Committee, she would be seeking to ensure that there is consideration of area-specific planning policy as well as the strategic planning policy within the Local Plan.

Considering responses to the Key Decisions Consultation

Cllr Andrews explained that the figures within the Agenda item did not account for 42 responses to a publication produced and distributed by Malton Town Council. 

Regarding responses to Question 1 – re the ‘plan-for’ figure of 200 homes pa

Members discussed the impact on air quality should any more development be allocated to Malton and Norton. The matter of providing additional infrastructure, including active travel routes, was also discussed.

Cllr Goodrick pointed-out that the election of a Mayor presents some uncertainty with respect to priorities and objectives.

Regarding responses to Question 2 – re proceeding with spatial distribution ‘Option 2’

Cllr Andrews stated the question was misleading and that it could not be assumed that those who disagree with Option 2 also agree with Option 1.

Regarding responses to Question 3 – re the categorisation of service villages

Cllr Andrews stated that he was disappointed that an option which ‘grouped’ villages together was not being considered, stating that catchment areas of villages should be considered, factoring-in their collective service provision.

Cllr Docwra stated that most village residents would object to more houses within their parishes and that there should balanced consideration.

Cllr Frank stated her support for a policy whereby any future growth in villages was dictated by their existing size and developed proportionately. Cllr Frank also argued that it is unrealistic to consider that public transport is likely to increase in popularity because residents will continue to use their own cars.

Cllr Goodrick stated that some villages can take more development but that we need to be mindful of the AONB and the National Park.

Cllr Potter explained some degree of development can be appropriate as it helps retain local services.

Regarding responses to Question 4 – re the deletion of the Local Needs Occupancy Condition (LNOC)

Cllr Docwra asked about the LNOC given that the uncertainty about the structure of planning policy.

Officers explained that the condition would remain until it is superseded by a new Local Plan. However, the condition may not be imposed if it is considered that other policy considerations outweigh its implementation (such as Listed Building) – already used currently.

If the land supply were to dwindle, this, as a material consideration, may outweigh the application of condition in the consideration of planning applications for new dwellings which would usually be subject to it. This is subject to legal advice.

Regarding responses to Question 5 – re the intention not to impose a Primary Residence Condition (PRC)

Cllr Potter stated that he was unconvinced that there was sufficient evidence to justify imposing the condition.

Cllr Andrews stated his support for the condition, based on if there were settlement specific issues identified- reiterating his concern about a possible ‘free-for-all’ once the LNOC is deleted.

Regarding responses to Question 6 – re a criteria-based policy for small-scale sites

Cllr Andrews reiterated that the figures within the consultation response table did not account for 42 responses to a publication produced and distributed by Malton Town Council. 

Regarding responses to Question 7 – re additional points relating to the small-scale sites policy

Cllr Andrews queried if development at one part of a village could be refused if an alternative brownfield site hadn’t first been developed, and stated that the wording should be less strong.

Officers explained that this was correct, but stated that a non-brownfield proposal might be seen as acceptable if there are other policy/context factors which prevented a brownfield site from being considered as developable/deliverable.

Cllr Potter stated that adequate sewage disposal is something which should be properly considered.

Regarding responses to Question 8 – re accessibility standards

Cllr Potter stated that he had no objection to the proposal.

Regarding responses to Question 9 and 10 – re SP18

Cllr Potter stated that he was keen to see the Council doing more regarding energy efficiency.

Regarding responses to Question 11 – re other policies

No questions or statements from Members.