Agenda item

Officers' Briefing Note: Enabling Development and the role of Policy SP12


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 able to take the volume of traffic the proposed sites would contribute towards.

Health care infrastructure concerns were also raised for other settlements, namely Kirkbymoorside and Pickering. A Member felt that in terms of schools and doctor shortages this is a problem that needs to be tackled through government intervention not through this Plan review.

It was suggested that infrastructure lags rather than leading it. Whereas Infrastructure should really lead the development.

Some members felt that the CHE plans should include infrastructure too, it needs to be a holistic approach to the whole lot of the development, and suggested that CHE need to contribute to this infrastructure requirement.

It was raised that CHE had offered to build a school in Slingsby to accommodate the volume of developments proposed.

Members asked if it would be possible to increase the charges for CIL that might restrict the size of the development and provide better infrastructure funds.

Officers explained that it is not possible to increase the CIL charge at present under the process of a partial review. Enabling development proposals, whether formal or through the plan-making process are still subject to CIL. Members will decide how CIL is spent.

It was suggested that perhaps the easiest way to deal with this and to provide suitable housing would be to create a complete new village with the complement of infrastructure rather than delivery of housing across a number of settlement. Members agree this would be controversial and perhaps one better suited for the new North Yorkshire Council.


Supporting documents: