Agenda item

Castle Howard Submissions


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 information has not yet been provided.



There was discussion surround the Slingsby meeting, which 106 people attended. One Member in attendance suggested that there was significant concern about the scale of the submissions.

One Member admitted that they do like many elements of the plans CHE have put forward, but felt the scale of the schemes particularly for Slingsby, could very easily rip the heart out of the village.

They also suggested that these sites need to be treated the same as all the others.

Officers explained that in terms of the sites we have had the submitted by CHE, we will look at each in an impartial and assessed way. But the choice of the approach to distribution of development will influence site choices. We need a strategy that is seen to be the most sustainable way to deliver the plan’s housing requirement.

Officers also stated that we will be asking all land owners who have submitted sites to demonstrate not only the housing figures but the other benefits their sites will bring.  We need to find an approach that looks at new and different ways of providing housing, affordable housing and other benefits.


Site 298 – Land north-west of Slingsby

Members stated that they hoped that CHE would look to protect the sports field, and some felt concern that a scheme there would affect the sports and leisure facilities in existence. It was asked whether the sports fields could in fact become an Asset of Community Value.

Members were concerned about the context of the site and Slingsby Castle. There was mention that CHE plan to take access to the south of castle, through Castle Farm and Members discussed the affect development would have on Slingsby Castle’s setting. Members recognised the importance of the ‘Castle’ as folly and former manor house to the character of Slingsby being widely viewable and important to Slingsby as well as being a designated heritage asset. 



Site 301a, b and c – Land south of Slingsby

Members raised concern in relation to site 301 and attenuation of surface water flows, in terms of water coming down that hill side. It was acknowledged as an existing problem, with flooding issues at Fryton. It was noted that CHE should be aware of this risk and the need to address it in their proposals.

Members reported that these submissions to the south did seem to not be quite as contentious in the meeting as the one by the sports field (298).


Site 296a – Land at Ganthorpe

Site 296b – Land at Ganthorpe

Some Members explained how the settlement is very small and has only just got broadband. Concerns were also raised regarding the scale of the increase, one Councillor suggested this would be a 600% increase in housing. Concerns were also raised in relation to highways and accessibility given that the road is single track for the most part and the surface is very basic.

Another Councilor was not as worried about the scale of the development but did also share concerns about the road and suggested that highway improvements are necessary for the scheme to come forward either through widening or passing places.

It was suggested that the scheme seemed to be a development which would in fact create a new village; but that this would need lots more facilities. Some members were concerned about the ability to deliver the necessary infrastructure.


Site 300a – Land to the East of Welburn

300b  - Land to the East of Welburn

Members suggested that there is good access to A64 from the development in terms of distance, however the Welburn junction on to the A64 can be quite dangerous as a right turn. It was suggested that there would need to be input from National Highways in relation to the junction. The Barton Hill junction is easier to navigate.

Parking is a significant issue for the settlement, particularly with visitors. They suggested that the Estate would need to provide a car park otherwise they felt this scheme would not be viable. One member agreed with this notion.

There was a discussion around the yield figures factoring in an average density of 30 dwellings per hectare and a 0.7 development factor which acknowledges land for roads, landscaping and public open space.


Supporting documents: