Agenda and minutes

Apologies received from Cllr Cleary

Jill Thompson and Matt Lishman

The Chair asked if any Cllrs had any matters rising from the minutes in which they wished to discuss.

Matters Arising of Minutes from 24 May meeting

Castle Howard Submissions

There was discussion around the Castle Howard Estates submission of sites at Slingsby. The Chair brought up a section in the previous meeting under the Slingsby section on Page 7 which stated that officers had mentioned that we would ask land owners to demonstrate housing figures and benefits the sites might bring, was this the case?

Officers stated that when we did the call for sites, we asked a series of questions about the site submission and what they would deliver e.g. green infrastructure, how many houses etc. We have that information, but some land owners have been far more detailed than others. That means effectively those who have not submitted the higher level of detail, they will not perform as well in the site assessment. We may well go back to site submitted for further info, and they are able to provide further info should they wish to.

A member asked if for example, a developer was to say they will deliver a specific number of homes or a certain house build standard or energy efficiency, how could we ensure they stick to this figure. RB explained that we would set out a number of development principles when we make allocations. Those principles will need to be deliverable, but that is how we will set out and require certain standards through the development. It was also explained that larger sites submissions will be expected to quantify infrastructure on and off site. We will need to set this out with allocations, as we did for the local sites document.

Some Members raised concerns about large development whereby infrastructure lags the development, rather than the more appropriate way around and felt that this was positive to avoid this. Member also asked for clarification on whether or not we could incorporate building standard and environmental standards into policies around allocations. Officers confirmed that, yes this could be done, but we would need test the viability.

One member explained that they had been present at the Ganthorpe meeting and had concerns that CHE not able to be legally bound to deliver all the wider benefits they are identifying and will simply sell the site to a major housebuilder.

It was also mentioned that CHE do attract money and tourism into the wider area, and this is about the wider estate.

That we should be open minded when considering these schemes and CHE’s intentions.

Sustainable build standards

The chair noted that national policy doesn’t contain enough about these matters raised (climate change mitigation, build standards etc.) Therefore all Members can do is get as much in to the Local and hoping that national policy catches up soon. We should be looking at successful plans and seeing how Ryedale can implement their approach. Rachael explained that the legal power is the Local Plan and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

RB gave a brief overview of the report published to members and explained that this was to revisit the timescales and reconfirm the scope of the principles of the Review.

The report notes that we aim to take a key decision paper to members in autumn. Followed by publication and intended submission on 23^rd February 2023. This will mean the review has been published and the principle of submission agreed when the new council comes into being.

In terms of the scope, the review needs to concentrate of spatial distribution principles, associated allocations, ensuring policies are in line with any amendments to NPPF and how the council will respond to climate change and build standards.

Things not to be covered in the review: Retail space requirements, CIL, Affordable housing policy, and the existing Ryedale Plan to sit alongside the review rather than a whole new document. It is also not the intention to do a whole scale review of development limits.

RB raised that in light of not reviewing development limits beyond allocations, and the discussions Members have been having on the sites that they may wish to explore a criteria based policy which gave a clear steer on small scale development. 

Member’s Questions and Discussion

There was discussion surrounding criteria based policy and looking at smaller sites coming forward outside of development limits. There was discussion over % increase per smaller settlement. Members explored within 5% to 10% of settlement size, as a more favourable figure. This would mean small scale development outside Development Limits could be considered but that those sites don’t need to be formally allocated. Some Members felt this should include brownfield sites but noted that developers are often less likely to as they are more expensive to develop. Most members echoed that this would be a good idea to encourage smaller development.

RB explained that Members would need look at the criteria which they had been exploring when they looked at all the site submissions- to think about the factors which would important to consider such as access, amenity, flood risk. 

RB advised that the review of the plan needs to ensure we have identified sufficient allocations to meet the land supply. We can’t rely on the additional housing from a criteria based policy, as this wouldn’t evidence delivery. It would just allow organic schemes to come forward in conjunction with the allocations under very specific circumstances.

Members discussed the scope of the review. RB explained that we have to evidence the policy changes we are making, but also the elements we don’t change need to also be proportionately evidenced and justified. The evidence base has to be comprehensive because of this. Members asked if there are plans for major shifts in government policy. Rachael explained that is has been noted that the NPPF will be updated in July, and this may affect how we respond to the Plan Review, subject to any transitional arrangements.

The topic of building standards was also covered. It  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

Dates of the next meeting is 7^th July to explore occupancy conditions then there will be a recess in meetings until September.

Meeting closed 19:45