Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Cllrs Thackray, P Andrews and Docwra.

Cllr Potter proposed the Minutes as a true record, which was seconded by Cllr Frank. The Minutes of the previous meeting were approved.

RB explained to Members that this was a document requested by Cllr P Andrews, who wanted to establish where enabling development sat within the existing policy framework and in the context of the Castle Howard Estate (CHE) site submissions.

CHE have chosen not to go down the route of formal Enabling Development in their approach, and to explore enabling development through the plan-making process.  Acknowledging that there is a heritage deficit that needs to be addressed, CHE have sought to consider the transformation of estate management in a more broad application than that prescribed in the guidance.

Policy SP12 is therefore not being regarding these proposals- and it is not a policy that has been identified as considered being under review as part of the review of the Ryedale Plan.

Member’s Questions and Discussion

One member raised some questions surrounding affordable housing and enquired about how the estate would look to provide this.

Affordability needed to be considered from what was truly affordable and could be calculated from resident’s average incomes rather than as a % discount of house price.

Officers stated that CHE are looking to increase and refine their portfolio, and they had meetings with Ryedale’s Housing department and Blenheim Estate, about how have been providing affordable housing and ‘real affordability’. Blenheim is quite a comparable estate and they have been delivering new approaches to affordable housing and CHE have stated that they do want to look at proactively incorporating affordable housing and exploring the approach undertaken by Blenheim.

Members asked if there would be any change to housing targets set by the government, for the amount of houses required to be provided by each council.  It was asked if we are bound by the targets and if they are removed, what the implications might be.

Officers explained that we are not aware of housing targets being removed or altered to any great extent. They remain a strong priority for government and are measured through the Standard Method calculation for housing requirement.

Members asked if Policy SP12 in the Ryedale Plan on Enabling Development (ED) was so worded to support CHE.

Officers confirmed that CHE had put forward a series of submissions in 2009 as had other estates and whilst as a policy it was not directed towards CHE alone, it was very much informed by the context of the various landed estates in Ryedale and their conservation deficits, and the approach was supported by Historic England as a local approach to considering ED proposals. No ED proposals were made, and the Balk site at Slingsby came forward as an allocated site through the plan-making process.

A Member requested information on the cumulative indicative yield of the combined sites along the B1257, between Broughton and Hovingham. Officers calculated that there had been a total of 31 site submissions in this corridor with an approximate minimum indicative yield of 844 units.

Concerns were raised by members in relation to infrastructure capacity, with suggestions that the roads would not be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

Members acknowledged that CHE have prepared a comprehensive and well considered submission.

Concerns around lack of connectivity were raised, and officers explained how CHE have sought to promote an estate strategy which looked to bring greater connections between the formal estate/land/communities.

One Member suggested that in Ryedale we have some very small hamlets and villages. Thornton Le Dale has good infrastructure currently, but that this settlement started somewhere and that new infrastructure can come from house building. 

It was also noted by a Member that more commonly businesses are developing at bigger villages, as they have the footfall to support them.

Smaller villages will take a smaller quantity of houses and this is less attractive to businesses in some cases. 

Officers then went on to present the CHE sites. After each settlement Members discussed the submissions. The information is annexed and the discussions identified below:

Site 295 – Land at Easthorpe

Members asked whether it was taking up good agricultural land- as that is a concern. No other comments were made.

Site 299 – Land east of Grange Farm, Bulmer

One member asked if we have had anything from AONB officer yet. Officers explained that the AONB manager attended the Terrington meeting, but has not yet formed or given a formal view on the proposals.

Some concerns were raised regarding the size of the site in relation to the existing village being about one and half times the size.

There was discussion between members around the existing use of farm stead and the individual building within site 299, they asked if any of these buildings would remain and if the farm was owned by CHE.

Officers explained that CHE have stated in their submission that they will be removing some of the building and confirmed that CHE own the farm.

Members raised concerns about the volume of development proposed for this site. Traffic and employment were raised as key issues. One Member suggested that some of this land should be an area of employment land too, so residents are able to stay and work in the village, rather than having to commute. Another member felt that the community service facilities section indicated on the CHE concept maps may be suggesting that there would be an element of employment included with that.

Other Members agreed with this suggestion, but did suggest that unless the A64 is upgraded, we may struggle to entice bigger businesses to villages.

There was also consideration about internet connectively and ensure people are able to work well from home from sites like these.

Site 297 – Land at Rye Hills, Coneysthorpe

Members felt this is be a broadly suitable place for commercial development. It doesn’t impact hugely on the registered park and garden and surrounding countryside.

Linking up the settlements as an employment offering and provides an indication of their holistic approach.

One asked if we have any indication of figures (number of units/employees).

Officers explained that the submission is high level at the moment and this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

Comments made were in relation to Scrayingham. It was noted that the village post office is situated within a private dwelling. The village is also subject to flooding and lacks a proper sewage system. The River Derwent in that section has a Special Area of Conservation – an international biodiversity designation. It was considered that development at such a settlement would raise concerns with Members.

Item 6: Any other Business

Members agreed further meetings to be held on Monday 13 June which would focus on the scope and timing of the plan review, with a start on the consideration of the principle of the approach to the distribution of development, and Wednesday 29 June (later changed to the 7 July), in order to discussion the Distribution of Development in more detail (such as a potential settlement hierarchy, Local Needs Occupancy and Primary residency and other policies which influence housing delivery).

Members discussed advertising the review of the Plan, and ensuring that we are making people aware of these sites. And it was agree that it would be timely for us to reinvigorate the advertising of the sites. It was also noted that we should make it clear that these are not planning applications and that not all these sites will come forward. Members also suggested that we need to make it clear what we are looking to achieve in this review.

It was also mentioned that there is still a lot of work to do with the time frame. Officers then suggested that we are now planning to go to agree publication in January of next year, aiming to publish the Plan before the new council forms.

Officers also advised Members that we are working on the basis that Members want to influence development in Ryedale with a pragmatic approach to get a review done as timely as possible. There is still a new expectation for the new Council to create a new plan within 5 years from vesting and in the meantime there will need to be a steer from the Shadow Authority in terms of how it wants to treat current local plan reviews. Irrespective of this uncertainty the work being undertaken to date will inform a future plan-making

Meeting Closed 20:07

Annexe Site information

Easthorpe

Site 295 – Land at Easthorpe

Site area (ha):

0.8

Yield info:

0 (employment site)

Policy considerations:

Site is entirely within AONB but not within a conservation area or any development limits. There is one Grade II listed building within the existing established business park, whilst Coneysthorpe Banks Wood is a nearby Site of Important Nature Conservation.

Bulmer

Site 299 – Land east of Grange Farm, Bulmer

Site area (ha):

5.89

Yield according to submission:

123

Current number of dwellings in village:

88

Policy considerations:

Site is entirely within AONB whilst the western-most section of the plot is in the conservation area. There are a number of VIUAs in the village but none within the plot. It is outside development limits.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.