Agenda item

Remaining settlements with no submissions received

Minutes:

Present

Cllrs P Andrews, Frank, Goodrick, Mason, Potter and Thackray

 

In Attendance

Jill Thompson, Rachael Balmer, Lizzie Phippard and Matthew Lishman

 

Item 1 – Apologies

Apologies were received from Cllr Mason, who was only able to join the meeting for a short time

 

Item 2 – Minutes of the meeting of 14 April 2022

Cllr Andrews proposed the Minutes as a true record, which was seconded by Cllr Potter

 

Item 3 – Market Towns (Kirkbymoorside and Pickering)

 

Members were presented with information on the submitted sites at Kirkbymoorside, and were advised of the type of use, their yield, cumulative yield and number of existing dwellings in the town. Members were also advised of key policy considerations. For details, see Appendix A below.

 

Members were then advised of the existing allocations and commitments at Kirkbymoorside.

 

Site

Allocation/Commitment Information

No. of units and progress

 

Land to the south of Swineherd Lane, Kirkbymoorside

Policy SD7 – The Ryedale Plan Local Plan Sites Document 2019

Planning application under consideration 19/00772/MOUT

43 – planning application under consideration

 

Land to the north of Keld Head Close, Kirkbymoorside

Policy SD8 – The Ryedale Plan Local Plan Sites Document 2019

18 – no application submitted

 

Brickworks Site, to north of Swineherd Lane, Kirkbymoorside

Policy SD9 – The Ryedale Plan Local Plan Sites Document 2019

6 - defined by applications approved since 31 March 2018

6 – this has started

 

Land off Wainds Field, Kirkbymoorside

Permissioned18/01313/MFUL

Total 32 units – under construction, 19 completed, 13 still to build out

 

Land off Westfield Way, Kirkbymoorside

17/01449/MREM

Total 225 - Under Construction, 134 built out, 91 still to build.

 

 

 

 

Total for Kirkbymoorside anticipated

c.171 still to be built out

 

 

 

Members’ Discussion regarding sites submitted in Kirkbymoorside

Site 62: Cllrs Frank and Potter queried if the site was in a high flood risk zone; RB confirmed that it was in zones 2 and 3 and explained that there were complex flood risk issues with the site.

 

Cllr Frank asked if the site should be discounted on the basis of flood risk; RB explained that all sites have to be assessed and their constraints and opportunities considered in a balanced way. However, the matter of flood risk weighs very heavily and this site would likely perform poorly in the Site Selection Methodology (SSM) process.

 

Sites 10 and 254: Cllr Thackray suggested that a good use of the sites might be allotments.

 

Members were then presented with information on the submitted sites at Pickering, and were advised of the type of use, their yield, cumulative yield and number of existing dwellings in the town. Members were advised again of key policy considerations. For details, see Appendix A below.

 

Members were then advised of the existing allocations and commitments at Pickering.

 

Site

Allocation/Commitment Information

No. of units and progress

 

Land to the east of Whitby Road, Pickering

Policy SD5 – The Ryedale Plan Local Plan Sites Document 2019  Permission under 17/01220/MFULE

Total 239 units – Under construction, 160 completed, 79 plots still to build out.

 

Land to the west of Malton Road, Pickering

Policy SD6 – The Ryedale Plan Local Plan Sites Document 2019

110 – no planning application submitted

 

Land East Of Outgang Road Outgang Lane
Pickering

Permission 19/00796/MFUL

20/00430/73M

Total 12 – Currently under construction, but none completed.

 

 

 

 

Total for Pickering outstanding

201

 

Members’ Discussion regarding sites submitted in Pickering

Site 268: Cllr Goodrick raised concerns about building dwellings near industrial areas. Cllr Frank queried if there was sufficient parking capacity on the site; ML suggested that – based purely on the mathematical calculation of 30 dwellings per hectare with a 70% development factor – sufficient parking could likely be provided, however this was not an indication of suitability. Cllr P Andrews suggested the site could be more suitable for industrial rather than housing; RB explained that the hotel was approved in part due to its suitability as a transitional use between employment and residential.

 

Site 13: Cllr Potter queried access possibilities; ML explained that no information had been provided but access might be achieved off Whitby Road or Whistler Drive.

 

 

Members’ Discussion regarding other topics

Cllr P Andrews emphasised that the purpose of the meeting was only to look at the sites and to share some initial thoughts.

 

Cllr Frank queried the weight of Visually Important Undeveloped Areas (VIUAs). RB explained that VIUAs are identified in the development plan so do have weight; however, there are examples of sites that have been allocated in such places after balanced consideration.

 

Cllr Potter expressed concern about the potential for settlement coalescence.

Flood risk was discussed in more detail. RB explained that surface water flood risk was a debated aspect of existing planning applications in KMS, with groundwater flooding also to be considered. While sites may be in Flood Zone 1, this only refers to fluvial flooding. Cllr Goodrick queried if the flood zone maps were up to date; RB confirmed that they were. Cllr Thackray stated that the Environment Agency’s flood maps were unreliable and that we should consult with the Drainage Board; he also stated that there were design possibilities to overcome flood problems; for instance, building higher.

 

Cllr Potter queried if the quality of agricultural land was being considered in site assessment. RB confirmed that it was considered and that we are becoming increasingly aware of the vulnerability of soils. Cllr Mason pointed out that best and most versatile (BAMV) agricultural land was used for things other than food, such as animal feed and energy crops. Cllr Goodrick reiterated that we need to be ‘food secure’. Cllr Thackray pointed out that people should have land for growing vegetables.

 

Cllr Thackray raised the issue of air quality, particularly in relation to Pickering, suggesting that if all development came forward, it is likely that recommended air quality thresholds would be breached.

 

Appendix A – Sites submitted in Kirkbymoorside and Pickering

Submitted sites in Kirkbymoorside

Total sites put forward (including Kirby Mills and Keldholme): 18

Residential sites: 14

Mixed sites: 1

Employment sites: 4

Total cumulative yield according to submission details: 359

Total cumulative yield according to 30dph x 0.7 (only considering sites submitted for residential use): 530

Total number of existing dwellings in the town: 1432

 

Site 10 – Land next to playing field, Kirby Mills

Site area (ha): 2.37

Yield according to submission: unspecified

Yield according to 30dph x 0.7: 49

Policy considerations: Outside development limits and within Visually Important Undeveloped Area.

Other considerations: Potential for coalescence between Kirkbymoorside and Keldholme/Kirby Mills.

 

Site 40 – Land north of Gillamoor Road

Site area (ha): 1.59

Yield according to submission: 40

Yield according to 30dph x 0.7: 33

Policy considerations: Just outside development limits and within an AHLV.

Other considerations: Adjacent to parcel of land to the south already allocated for housing.

 

Site 41 – Land west of Alderson House

Site area (ha): 0.32

Yield according to submission: 3

Yield according to 30dph x 0.7: 6

Policy considerations: Outside development limits and within Visually Important Undeveloped Area.

Other considerations: Potential for coalescence between Kirkbymoorside and Keldholme/Kirby Mills.

 

Site 46 – Land off Gawtersyke Lane

Site area (ha): 0.57

Yield according to submission: 6

Yield according to 30dph x 0.7: 11

Policy considerations: Outside development limits.

Other considerations: Adjacent to Site 255.

 

Site 62 – Land adjacent to Kirby Mills Industrial Estate

Site area (ha): 4.33

Yield according to submission: 0

Policy considerations: Outside development limits.

Other considerations: Submitted as employment site, abuts existing employment land.

 

Site 67 – Land to the west of Ings Lane

Site area (ha): 4.86

Yield according to submission: 0

Policy considerations: Outside development limits.

Other considerations: Put forward as employment site.

 

Site 105 – Land east of Ings Lane

Site area (ha): 1.96

Yield according to submission: 9

Yield according to 30dph x 0.7: 41

Policy considerations: Outside development limits.

Other considerations: Adjacent to site 260.

 

Site 108 – Lund Barn, Ings Lane

Site area (ha): 0.32

Yield according to submission: 6

Yield according to 30dph x 0.7: 6

Policy considerations: Outside development limits.

 

Site 117 – Land at Keldholme

Site area (ha): 3.78

Yield according to submission: 20

Yield according to 30dph x 0.7: 78

Policy considerations: Outside development limits and within Visually Important Undeveloped Area.

Other considerations: Potential for coalescence between Kirkbymoorside and Keldholme/Kirby Mills.

 

Site 135; 142 and 147: The Green, 16 Church Street; Garden of 18 Church Street; and Bottom third of paddock behind 18 Church Street

All very small sites each proposing one unit. All outside development limits but in Visually Important Undeveloped Areas. A Scheduled Ancient Monument is also nearby to Site 147 (Neville Castle).

 

Site 213 – Wits End (Site 1), Kirby Mills Industrial Estate

Site area (ha): 0.1

Yield according to submission: 0

Policy considerations: Outside but immediately abutting development limits and land allocated for employment.

Other considerations: Submitted as employment site.

 

Site 219 – Wits End (Site 2), Kirby Mills Industrial Estate

Site area (ha): 0.66

Yield according to submission: 0

Policy considerations: Outside but immediately abutting development limits and land allocated for employment.

Other considerations: Submitted as employment site.

 

Site 252 – Land south of A170 Kirkdale Road

Site area (ha): 3.25

Yield according to submission: 75

Yield according to 30dph x 0.7: 68

Policy considerations: Outside development limits. Includes a disused railway line abutting the site to the south.

Other considerations: Strip of land to the east featuring an orchard forming buffer to existing settlement.

 

Site 254 – Land south of Swineherd Lane

Site area (ha): 1.4

Yield according to submission: 40

Yield according to 30dph x 0.7: 29

Policy considerations: Outside development limits and within Visually Important Undeveloped Area.

Other considerations: Public right of way goes through the site. Abuts piece of land already allocated within development plan.

 

Site 255 – Land at West Lund Lane

Site area (ha): 6.2

Yield according to submission: 67

Yield according to 30dph x 0.7: 130

Policy considerations: Outside development limits but partially within an area of land seen as expansion land for existing employment use.

Other considerations: There is an application currently under consideration for the site: hybrid application, comprising expansion of Sylatech and erection of 67 dwellings.

 

Site 260 – Land south of Carter Lane

Site area (ha): 3.02

Yield according to submission: 90

Yield according to 30dph x 0.7: 63

Policy considerations: Outside but connected to development limits.

Other considerations: Adjacent to site 105.

 

Submitted sites in Pickering

Total sites put forward: 22

Residential sites: 20

Tourism sites: 1

Employment sites: 1

Total yield according to submission details: 1537

Total cumulative yield according to 30dph x 0.7 (only considering sites submitted for residential use): 1317

Total number of existing dwellings in the town: 1432

 

Site 1 – Land south of Ings Garth

Site area (ha): 1.83

Yield according to submission: 50

Yield according to 30dph x 0.7: 38

Policy considerations: Outside development limits.

Other considerations: Site has been drawn to avoid Flood Zone 3 designation.

 

Site 11 – Sunquest, Whitby Road

Site area (ha): 0.47

Yield according to submission: 4

Yield according to 30dph x 0.7: 9

Policy considerations: Outside development limits and within Area of High Landscape Value (AHLV).

 

Site 13 – Land behind High Croft House, 52 Ruffa Lane

Site area (ha): 3.9

Yield according to submission: 20

Yield according to 30dph x 0.7: 81

Policy considerations: Outside development limits and within AHLV.

Other considerations: Medieval strip field patterns 

 

Site 18 – Field on Haygate Lane

Site area (ha): 0.43

Yield according to submission: 0

Yield according to 30dph x 0.7: 0

Policy considerations: Outside development limits

Other considerations: Submitted as tourism site

 

Site 19 – Land west of 110A Outgang Road

Site area (ha): 0.64

Yield according to submission: 10

Yield according to 30dph x 0.7: 13

Policy considerations: Outside development limits and within Visually Important Undeveloped Area (VIUA)

Other considerations: Medieval strip field patterns

 

Site 23 – Buildings at Eastgate Crossing, Malton Road

Site area (ha): 1.74

Yield according to submission: 4

Yield according to 30dph x 0.7: 36

Policy considerations: Outside development limits and disused railway within site.

 

Site 29 – Land north of Middleton Road

Site area (ha): 6.39

Yield according to submission: 200

Yield according to 30dph x 0.7: 134

Policy considerations: Outside development limits and within AHLV

Other considerations: Possible coalescence with Middleton

 

Site 45 – Land off A169 Malton Road

Site area (ha): 11.5

Yield according to submission: 315

Yield according to 30dph x 0.7: 241

Policy considerations: Outside development limits and within VIUA. Disused railway alongside northern boundary.

Other considerations: Medieval strip field patterns.

 

Site 53 – Bessy Brigg, Newbridge

Site area (ha): 0.15

Yield according to submission: 4

Yield according to 30dph x 0.7: 3

Policy considerations: Outside development limits, within conservation area.

Other considerations: High risk flood zone. Nearby to scheduled ancient monument (Pickering Castle)

 

Site 55 – Land north of Riparian Lodge, Old Mill Lane

Site area (ha): 0.56

Yield according to submission: 12

Yield according to 30dph x 0.7: 11

Policy considerations: Within development limits and within VIUA

Other considerations: High risk flood zone.

 

Site 76 – Land at Swainsea Lane

Site area (ha): 1.42

Yield according to submission: 40

Yield according to 30dph x 0.7: 29

Policy considerations: Outside development limits and within AHLV

Other considerations: Wraps around recently developed site (College View)

 

Site 89 – Land at Stanfield Drive

Site area (ha): 4.83

Yield according to submission: 130

Yield according to 30dph x 0.7: 101

Policy considerations: Outside development limits

Other considerations: Adjacent to site allocated (and built out) in previous plan period. Effectively a double-submission/duplication of Site 294.

 

Site 134 – Land lying to the east of Mayfly Court, Mill Lane

Site area (ha): 0.29

Yield according to submission: 5

Yield according to 30dph x 0.7: 6

Policy considerations: Outside development limits

 

Site 217 – Whitby Road

Site area (ha): 5.07

Yield according to submission: 150

Yield according to 30dph x 0.7: 106

Policy considerations: Outside development limits and within AHLV

Other considerations: Adjacent to site allocated (and built out) in previous plan period. Medieval strip field patterns.

 

Site 220 – Land at the back of 52 Ruffa Lane

Site area (ha): 7.22

Yield according to submission: 300

Yield according to 30dph x 0.7: 151

Policy considerations: Outside development limits and within AHLV

Other considerations: Medieval strip field patterns

 

Site 227 – Land south of Keldhead Hall, Middleton Road

Site area (ha): 1

Yield according to submission: 5

Yield according to 30dph x 0.7: 21

Policy considerations: Outside development limits and within VIUA; also immediately adjacent to conservation area. Nearby to SSSI; Keld Head Springs.

 

Site 250 – Land to the west of Outgang Lane, Outgang Road

Site area (ha): 3.38

Yield according to submission: 40

Yield according to 30dph x 0.7: 70

Policy considerations: Outside development limits.

Other considerations: Features a pond. Adjacent to recent development; Hugden Close and another development site which has very recently commenced.

 

Site 257 – Land between Thornton Road and Ruffa Lane

Site area (ha): 2.34

Yield according to submission: 50

Yield according to 30dph x 0.7: 49

Policy considerations: Outside development limits and within AHLV and VIUA.

Other considerations: Adjacent to site that was allocated (and built out) in previous plan period.

 

Site 268 – Land to the south of Thornton Road

Site area (ha): 1.59

Yield according to submission: 28

Yield according to 30dph x 0.7: 33

Policy considerations: Outside development limits, adjacent to allocated employment land.

Other considerations: Site of recently developed chain hotel.

 

Site 293 – Spring Pastures, 31 Garden Way

Site area (ha): 0.94

Yield according to submission: unspecified

Yield according to 30dph x 0.7: 19

Policy considerations: Outside development limits.

Other considerations: Medieval strip field patterns.

 

Site 294 – Land off Firthland Road (Phase 2)

Site area (ha): 7.94

Yield according to submission: 170

Yield according to 30dph x 0.7: 166

Policy considerations: Outside development limits and adjacent to allocated employment land.

Other considerations: Adjacent to site allocated (and build out) in previous plan period. Effectively a double-submission/duplication of Site 89.

 

 

Item 4 – Item continued from meeting of April 14 2022: Settlements where no submissions have been made as a result of the Call for Sites

 

Ganton

Previous submissions

1

Dwellings in the village currently

102

Services

Church, village hall, pub, sports field, bus stops

Discussion

Cllr P Andrews suggested the village could take some development.

 

Cllr Goodrick stated that commuting would be required as there is no employment within the village.

 

Cllr Frank suggested that employment and industrial land could be allocated in villages to enable people to work and live within a village.

 

Cllr Thackray echoed Cllr Frank’s comments and stated that lots of people also work from home.

 

Cllr Potter agreed and stated that he would live to see all villages expanded by a moderate percentage if there was an employment element.

 

 

Gillamoor

Previous submissions

None.

Dwellings in the village currently

72

Services

Primary school, church, pub, sports field

Discussion

Cllr P Andrews suggested there would be room for a few more houses.

 

Harton

Previous submissions

4

Dwellings in the village currently

40

Services

Distanced from the village, on the A64: restaurant and petrol station with shop

Discussion

Cllr Goodrick also pointed out the ecological sensitivities on the designated area of marshy land to the east of the village.

 

 

Heslerton (East)

Previous submissions

5

Dwellings in the village currently

181 (including East and West)

Services

Church, village hall, bus stops

Discussion

Cllr P Andrews suggested that there could be room for more houses, Cllr Thackray agreed.

 

Howsham

Previous submissions

2

Dwellings in the village currently

55

Services

Church

Discussion

Cllr Thackray suggested there are ‘gaps’ which could be filled; Cllr P Andrews stated that there could be some room for small expansion, but not a large amount because that might destroy the character of the village

 

 

Huttons Ambo

Previous submissions

One residential, several employment

Dwellings in the village currently

129

Services

Church, village hall, youth club, shop

Discussion

Cllr Goodrick stated that the shop is small and has limited opening hours;

 

Cllr P Andrews stated that more houses in the village could be appropriate as long as the local vernacular was followed

 

Cllr Goodrick raised concerns about the exits onto the A64; Cllr Thackray stated that the possibility of a roundabout primarily (serving York Road industrial estate) could provide a solution to access issues into and out of Huttons Ambo.

 

At this point, it was agreed that these remaining settlements would be considered by Members outside of the meeting, and if any comments were to be made, this would be at the forthcoming Local Plan Working Party on the 24 May 2022.

 

 

This information forms an appendix for the 24 May 2022 meeting of the Local Plan Working Party.

 

Meeting closed at 20.10

 

Supporting documents: