Agenda item

Cllr P Andrews and Cllr Goodrick thanked officers for the report.

RB presented an overview of the matters covered by the distribution of development consultation and summarised the report. 

Members then discussed the report on a page-by-page basis:

Infrastructure

Cllr P Andrews: disagreed with the assertion that housing delivery had aligned with infrastructure delivery, referring specifically to problems in Malton.

Cllr Thackray: agreed with Cllr P Andrews’ comment, referring to a lack of delivery of complimentary interventions following Brambling Fields junction scheme. Reiterated that Malton requires further infrastructure prior to any further development.

Cllr Potter: echoed previous comments regarding the need for infrastructure to either match or precede development. Also raised concerns regarding baseline figures for levels of traffic and emphasised need to consider congestion and air quality.

Cllr Thackray: added that forthcoming NYCC-led proposals to change traffic flows in Malton/Norton will be breaking the law on the basis of exceeding air quality levels.

Cllr Frank: raised concerns regarding Kirkbymoorside and a lack of sufficient facilities; referring specifically to the absence of a major supermarket and over-subscribed health/education facilities.

RB explained that we had have meetings with relevant NHS organisations (Clinical Commissioning Groups and surgeries) to seek their feedback and views about the distribution of development and how this could affect service delivery and what additional support may be required.

Development in Villages

Cllr Goodrick: explained that we need to be brave and accept that housing must go somewhere; be it by expanding existing service villages or developing in other villages.

Cllr Thackray: argued that Service Villages are a misnomer: all villages are inter-connected and inter-dependent and support each other by providing services and providing a customer base utilising those services. Stated that villages should be treated with the same respect as they all serve one another.

Cllr P Andrews: referred to the NPPF’s emphasis in revitalising rural communities by grouping smaller settlements and with less reliance on settlements having services of their own.

Cllr Goodrick: pointed-out that no village in her ward has a shop so most go to York or Stamford Bridge for services.

Cllr Windress: raised concerns regarding traffic problems at school pick-up/drop-off times in Beadlam, at Ryedale School, pointing out that Site 127 could provide solutions.

Cllr Mason: raised concerns regarding development along the B1257, with particular concern about coalescence.

Occupancy Conditions

Cllr Frank: suggested that a Primary Residence condition should be considered; Cllr P Andrews agreed.

Cllr Thackray: echoed the suggestion of a Primary Residence condition, pointing out that any concerns about it de-valuing properties are unwarranted and that it would deliver what the Local Needs Occupancy (LNO) condition has failed to do; enabling people to live in properties as their home. Also stated that LNO curtails healthy organic growth in small villages and blocks housing, rather than facilitates it, and is harmful on that basis. Cllr P Andrews agreed.

Cllr Thackray: requested a definition of self-build; JT provided the legal definition and the glossary definition. Also stated that local planning authorities must made sufficient plots so some land supply provides for self-build and custom housebuilding. Cllr Thackray suggested that promoting self-builders would be a wonderful thing to do and it could be tied into the Primary Residence condition.

Development Limits

Cllr P Andrews: suggested that development limits should be revised; possibly revising all or some development limits, or setting out principles or criteria.

Cllr Goodrick: agreed with Cllr P Andrews and suggested it could encourage small amounts of growth in villages; suggested that we would need to consider which villages are more likely to be able to provide services.

Cllr Thackray: also agreed but suggested that the most important services was sewers and roads, pointing-out that all villages have access to supermarkets and retail via online shopping.

Cllr Potter: agreed that small villages need limited amount of more organic growth. Queried what mechanisms were available to consider small sites (2-5 units) as part of the Plan Review process, rather than small sites coming forward on an ad hoc basis. RB explained that it is something we can look at, but we need to ensure that we can robustly demonstrate land supply.

Climate change matters (Energy efficiency etc.)

Cllr Potter: remarked that the consultation revealed groundswell of interest across the subjects presented in the distribution of development consultation document. Suggested that we could progress with policy suggestions and let national policy ‘catch up’.

Cllr P Andrews: suggested that a design guide could be incorporated into the new plan which could include things about energy efficiency.

Cllr Potter: emphasised the importance of considering water consumption.

Cllr Mason: suggested that we need to have a look at what will be sound in terms of aligning with current legislation, suggesting we look at other authorities’ progress. Cllr P Andrews remarked that we have officers and eventually consultants to advise us on such things.

Cllr Goodrick: suggested that solutions could be contained within Building Regulations legislation.

Cllr Thackray: suggested that builders should be encouraged to introduce all measures they possibly can; including, perhaps, by reducing or exempting CIL payment requirements to facilitate the inclusion of certain features when building. RB advised that CIL payments are fixed and only specific forms of development are subject to exemption (and building sustainably is not one of them). However, self-build schemes which meet the required tests and occupancy timescales are exempt from CIL.

Cllr Mason: suggested that Cambridge local authority are a good example; Cllr Potter echoed that we should look at what successful Councils are doing and follow.

Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land

General concerns about the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land were raised.

This was in relation to new development, and also in relation to renewable energy schemes where the land-take is significant.

Cllr Potter: emphasised the need to avoid the best and most versatile agricultural land for building, due to its importance for food production; with less good quality perhaps to be used for renewable energy schemes.

Cllr Mason: explained that we should consider relative percentages of land use, when considering land for food production and renewable energy schemes.

Cllr Thackray: suggested that field margins could be considered, and suggested incorporating renewable energy schemes into field margins. Also emphasised the need for applicants to provide reports outlining to soil quality if their schemes would lead to loss of agricultural land. (Cllr Mason advised this was not technically feasible)

Cllr Goodrick: stated that it is paramount that good agricultural land is not wasted and is used for food production, as it going to become increasingly important in the future. Also stressed that field margins are important for biodiversity.

Cllr Frank: stated that food production is a cause of worry and suggested that Grade 3 land shouldn’t be built on at all. Echoed Cllr Goodrick’s comments about field margins and biodiversity.