Agenda item

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 expressed through the policies. In order to do that we need to evidence those policy choices and provided a viability evidence base to back it up.

One member stated that the viability evidence base is the struggle as this is where developers can then find they are unable to build because of our requirements, and they will build elsewhere.

Rachael explained that this is on the basis that we have viability tested those chosen standards in the Plan before allocations, so that developers can’t then come back and say this. This would be based on the level of housing delivery, housing market values that developers have submitted to us, against the build standards and factoring affordable housing policy and CIL. Making sure it can demonstrated that a specific build standard is achievable and therefore they should build to that standard.

One member felt this would then be reflected in the price of those houses when they come to market, they are likely to then be more expensive to equate for the extra build cost, and therefore less affordable.

Slingsby Sports Field and other matters

There was some discussion over Slingsby sports field and potential for it becoming an Asset of Community Value. Rachael explained that the Parish could instigate this, or a neighbourhood group and it is then administered by the district council. A number of members have had conversations and worked with Slingsby sports association, and felt they may be the best group to go for Asset of Community Value.

A member explained that there was a direct question at the Slingsby meeting to see if the Castle Howard Estate would gift the sports field to the community. CHE did not agree to this, but nor did they disagree. Also the provision of a school, they said they might be able to assist with this.

There was a comment about the existing housing stock in the village, and how CHE are selling off some of this existing stock at present. There was concern that this existing housing stock being sold off may be brought and turned into holiday lets/B&B. CHE had apparently suggested that we might impose a principle residency policy. This is not current policy, no decisions have been made to implement such a policy, and would not apply to existing dwellings

Cllr Mason asked if we will be looking at neighbourhood  plans and local green space in this review, as he felt this should be considered.

RB explained that we would not be, but neighbourhood plan preparation is something the government is very keen for us to support.

RB In larger unitary areas, such as Cornwall and Northumberland that have been through unitary changes there are more neighbourhood plans present. Going forward with LGR we are likely to see North Yorkshire having many more Neighbourhood  plans coming forward as the overall plan will likely be a lot more high level, so more detail could be dealt with in localised Plans.

RB In the development of the local plan sites document we took the view that the subject of green space is best responded to by the local community, so this would best addressed through the neighbourhood plan process.

RB We will look at green infrastructure in the review in relation to sites but don’t have the capacity to identify and designate local green space in the review of this plan.

The Chair asked if the site submissions are already out there in the public domain and had everyone seen the Transport connectivity paper issues in May by CHE. It was confirmed to members that all sites and submitted documentation is now publicly available. Members were concerned that there had been delays in getting the information out.

Minutes from 24 May 2022.

Cllr Goodrick noted an error in the Welburn section on the minutes (paragraph 3 the second sentence) the wording reads ‘car’ not ‘car park’ – as it should.

Following these discussions the minutes where moved by Cllr Potter and seconded by Cllr Frank, for approval with this aforementioned amendment.

The minutes were approved with the amendment by Cllr. Goodrick.