Agenda item

RB gave a brief overview of the report published to members and explained that this was to revisit the timescales and reconfirm the scope of the principles of the Review.

The report notes that we aim to take a key decision paper to members in autumn. Followed by publication and intended submission on 23^rd February 2023. This will mean the review has been published and the principle of submission agreed when the new council comes into being.

In terms of the scope, the review needs to concentrate of spatial distribution principles, associated allocations, ensuring policies are in line with any amendments to NPPF and how the council will respond to climate change and build standards.

Things not to be covered in the review: Retail space requirements, CIL, Affordable housing policy, and the existing Ryedale Plan to sit alongside the review rather than a whole new document. It is also not the intention to do a whole scale review of development limits.

RB raised that in light of not reviewing development limits beyond allocations, and the discussions Members have been having on the sites that they may wish to explore a criteria based policy which gave a clear steer on small scale development. 

Member’s Questions and Discussion

There was discussion surrounding criteria based policy and looking at smaller sites coming forward outside of development limits. There was discussion over % increase per smaller settlement. Members explored within 5% to 10% of settlement size, as a more favourable figure. This would mean small scale development outside Development Limits could be considered but that those sites don’t need to be formally allocated. Some Members felt this should include brownfield sites but noted that developers are often less likely to as they are more expensive to develop. Most members echoed that this would be a good idea to encourage smaller development.

RB explained that Members would need look at the criteria which they had been exploring when they looked at all the site submissions- to think about the factors which would important to consider such as access, amenity, flood risk. 

RB advised that the review of the plan needs to ensure we have identified sufficient allocations to meet the land supply. We can’t rely on the additional housing from a criteria based policy, as this wouldn’t evidence delivery. It would just allow organic schemes to come forward in conjunction with the allocations under very specific circumstances.

Members discussed the scope of the review. RB explained that we have to evidence the policy changes we are making, but also the elements we don’t change need to also be proportionately evidenced and justified. The evidence base has to be comprehensive because of this. Members asked if there are plans for major shifts in government policy. Rachael explained that is has been noted that the NPPF will be updated in July, and this may affect how we respond to the Plan Review, subject to any transitional arrangements.

The topic of building standards was also covered. It was noted by one member that the government had formally responded last year in reconfirming that Local Plans can set standards for new homes that go beyond building regulations specification. Members expressed support for looking to employ sustainable building standards, and that we would need to be sure that the developers could deliver those standards, looking at viability.

Members discussed Policy SP8 and raised concerns around holiday cottages not paying an appropriate amount of council tax or business rates. RB explained that we have an established approach in terms of tourist accommodation. It was confirmed that our approach to tourist accommodation is not something we expect to be reviewing. But we will be looking at occupancy conditions and the review of the plan- specifically the Ryedale Plan Local Needs Occupancy Condition (LNOC) condition and the use of a primary residency condition.

One member was pleased to see that LNOC and primary residency would be coming forward in the Review, but did say that in relation to development limits, they felt it was wrong to restrict to the size of development, instead they felt the restriction should be development that will not be in line with the character or location of settlement. This has the potential to allow more development.

Reference was made to the site selection criteria and that not changes had been made to the assessment from last time. They felt that the selection methodology was restrictive and we only allowed for allocation of sites if they were in the locality of a pub, a school and a bus stop, restricting development to about 10 or 12 villages.

RB confirmed the site section methodology (SSM) has been reviewed and updated in relation to the sustainability appraisal objectives and updates in specific areas. But the SSM only employs the settlement hierarchy as it is ultimately identified. So as the criteria for service villages is being reviewed, and so it is for member to decide the settlement hierarchy, and to establish if it will remain the same or be amended and if so how it is amended.

Members discussed subsection 6.13 of the report which looks at the aspects of the Plan which are proposed not to be under view. This included the affordable policy. Members raised concerns around the current situation in the district with affordable housing, and affordable not being affordable. It was considered that local affordable housing and social housing are different things. Concerns for families wanting to stay in a local area and not being able to buy there.

There was discussion around Malton and Norton, particularly in relation to the existing allocation for 700 houses at Norton and limited infrastructure in the principle towns.

There was also conversations about Malton and Norton air quality management areas and need for improvements there.

A number of members agreed that we need to be more agile and concise about the scope of the review given the limited time scales, with the timeframe being a concern. RB advised that Officers would keep Members up to date with work and any delays. Members appreciated that is it is a case of being effective within in a short period of time for the communities in Ryedale.

It was also noted that we need to take note of other authorities Local Plans who will be joining the new north Yorkshire council. RB confirmed that as of yet no decisions have been made in terms of what the  format of the Local Plan will look like in the new council or indeed the principle of the Shadow Authority’s approach to plan reviews. A number of members agreed that given the substantial change upon the authority, they would like to get as far through the current review as possible.

Conclusion

The Chair moved the recommendation with amendment of subsection underlined below

2.0 RECOMMENDATION in part (ii) to change the wording to ‘Agree the scope in principle of the review of the Ryedale Plan to the elements identified in paragraph 6.11 and 6.15;’

(Parts (i) and (iii) to remain the same).

This is in relation to ensuring criteria based policy is included, as part (i) specifically mentioned that we will not be doing a full scale review of development limits.

This was seconded by Cllr Mason, who was advised of the change in the meeting due to him leaving earlier.

Members voted to approve recommendation within the report with the amendment as above.

5 for, 2 abstentions – recommendation approved with amendment.