How do we know that Ryedale plans to release land for at least 2,165 houses in Malton/Norton? Does Ryedale really want to turn Malton and Norton into a huge building site?
Questions and Answers
Q. How many houses are there in Malton/Norton now?
A. Council figures show that in 2008 there were 2,349 dwellings in Malton. At the same time there were 3,178 swellings in Norton. So,2,165 more houses approximates to the number of dwellings in Malton in 2008, and constitutes a massive expansion of the entire settlement..
Q: How do we know that Ryedale means to permit 2,165 houses to be built in Malton/Norton over the next 15 years?
Short Answer: The draft Ryedale Plan (Page 39, Policy CS2) states that at least 50% (at least 1,500 houses) of all new houses will be built in Malton/Norton. There is no cap to determine the maximum number of houses. The question is: how many houses between 1,500 and 3,000 are Ryedale really considering? An important clue is given by the Malton and Norton Strategic Transport Assessment of June 2010 (“STA” for short). This document attempts to analyse the impact of new development on existing road junctions (as recommended for improvement). This document recommends “Scenario” 4A which includes 2,165 new houses, as well as much more new development of other kinds. According to this flawed document (which Ryedale officers are using as a guide for development), “ the increase in congestion levels associated with Scenario 4A are small with only limited congestion occurring at Pasture Lane junction with the double mini roundabout layout proposal”. As Ryedale officers are using this document as a basis for discussions with developers, it is clear that they are planning for at least 2,165 new houses to be built in Malton/Norton.
Long Answer (annotated with evidence):
A: The draft Ryedale Plan (Page 39, Policy CS2) states that at least 50% (at least 1,500 houses) of all new houses will be built in Malton/Norton. There is no cap to determine the maximum number of houses.
The Malton and Norton Strategic Transport Assessment June 2010 (“STA” for short) considers 9 scenarios for traffic likely to be generated by planned new development. It dismisses all of these, and then (Page 86 paras. 17.3.5 and 17.3.6)a new option called Option “4A”. This option comprises 27 ha new retail, 2165 new dwellings, 0.2 ha new education, 44ha new employment and 3.3ha new leisure (Page 87).
Para 17.3.5 reads: “ In the light of this a sensitivity test has been undertaken to test the effects of reducing the amount of residential development” (ie in the original Scenario 4 – 4.6ha + 2574 other dwellings)” by 50% in this scenario so that it equates to a lower level of housing that is more likely to be considered through the Council’s LDF”
Para 18.4 (page 90) reads as follows:” Recommendation Summary: 18.4.1. At this level of development Scenario 4A is a robust and viable option as it results in an acceptable impact on the local highway network particularly with mitigation and contains sites distributed across both Malton and Norton and therefore allows an assessment of the complex traffic impacts and interrelationships across the towns in a single scenario”
Para 20.3.3 reads: “The increase in congestion levels associated with Scenario 4A are small with only limited congestion occurring at the Pasture Lane junction and the double mini roundabout layout proposal”
Q. What is the status of the STA?
A. The STA was produced for consultation, and was not well received by the town councils. The Council said that it would go out for public consultation in the light of comments made at a briefing to which town councillors were invited, but not the public or the press. Since then, Ryedale has stated that the STA is being treated as a working document produced by consultants which is not open to public consultation, but which Council officers are using as a guide when considering planning applications.
Q. What’s wrong with the STA?
Short Answer:
It is a case of “garbage in: garbage out”. As with other consultants’ reports prepared for Ryedale, they depend on information provided by the Council. If the wrong information is provided, the Council will get the wrong answer. If they want the wrong answer, all they have to do is to input wrong data.
The STA is intended to assess the impact of proposed new development on existing junctions. In making this assessment, it is necessary to take into account development for which planning permission has been given (but not implemented) or for which planning would have to be granted if applied for (e.g. where the site is within development limits and/or is in accordance with existing policies). Clearly if traffic generated by new development would have no greater impact than traffic generated by existing development (plus the traffic generated by development which would have to be allowed if planning permission is applied for), then the proposed new development can be said to be acceptable.
However, the STA goes one step further. Instead of taking into account permissions which would have to be granted because the site is within existing policy, the STA also takes into account sites which existing council policies would require to be refused, but which Ryedale’s political administration would like to see approved (eg. controversial matters such as a supermarket on Wentworth Street Car Park).
So, instead of comparing the traffic likely to be generated by each scenario of new development with the impact of traffic currently generated by the existing town, the STA assumes that ALL the developments on a list of “development assumptions” WILL be developed (even though most of them are outside development or commercial limits and therefore contrary to the saved polices in the the Council’s existing plan) and compares the traffic likely to be generated by each of 10 scenarios with the traffic currently in the town PLUS the traffic generated by the developments included in the list.
So the STA produces distorted conclusions. So, for example, what is the point of using the STA to determine whether or not the traffic generated by a new supermarket in Wentworth Street Car Park is likely to be acceptable, when one of the assumptions made in the STA is that planning permission would be granted for it?
Long answer:
Jacobs report looks at 10 scenarios (1-9 and 4A).
Jacobs were instructed to provide a strategic highways assessment for Malton. A draft of this was provided to Ryedale at the beginning of November 2009, and a letter (ex17) from the Planning Office dated 23rd November confirms that Ryedale had this on 23rd November 2009. Councillor Andrews requested a copy of the draft, but this request was refused in the same letter. The final report was not issued to members until March 2010. This suggests a lot of toing and thro’ing between officers, consultants and leading members to “get the report right”!!
On 15th December 2009, the Council met to decide its preferred options for the LDF. The only information on highways impact which they had before them was the letter (ex18) from Barrie Mason, emailed to the Council that day. This had not been consulted upon and was put before members 5 minutes before the meeting began. It is in highly technical language which was not explained, and stated that the officers’ proposals for the preferred options would not have an unacceptable highways impact.
When the STA was produced nearly three months later, there were expressions of public outrage. Page 11 of the “draft final report” (Para. 3.3.3) contains a list (ex14) of development sites which purport to “have been given planning permission and are therefore committed or allocated and are likely to be developed first”. In fact very few of these sites had received planning permission, and only a few had been allocated. A note can be found by clicking here (ex 19 a&b)) with details in this respect. Bearing in mind the long period of gestation of the report in council offices, the extent of the inaccuracy of this statement is staggering. (The STA was revised in June 2010, and the list has been renamed as a list of “development assumptions. There is no change to the items listed).
The list includes the Aldi site (it’s the site listed as “Former Dewhirst Factory, Welham Road”), which officers subsequently recommended for refusal.
Further, a number of sites listed for convenience retail appear on this list. These add up to more than 6,000 sq.m, which exceeds the amount of new floor space up to the year 2021 recommended by RTP in the report which had only been adopted by the Council on 15th December 2009 by more than two times. The sites in questions are: Livestock market (1000sq.m), Wentworth Street Car park (3,000sq.m.), and Robsons Garage (3,200 sq.m.)and the Welham Road Site (2,100sq.m)
A second list includes development sites for housing (4.6 ha plus 667 units), most of them outside of existing defined development limits
It is unlikely that these list could have been prepared either by Jacobs or by Ryedale’s planning officers.One suspects political interference.
Jacobs report looks at 10 scenarios (1-9 and 4A).
Instead of comparing the traffic likely to be generated by each scenario of new development with the impact of traffic currently generated by the existing town, the report assumes that ALL the developments on the page 11 list referred to above WILL be developed and compares the traffic likely to be generated by each scenario with the traffic currently in the town PLUS the traffic generated by the developments included in the list.
The report makes clear that certain key junctions within the town are already over capacity. So, after adding the developments listed to the current traffic, it is easy to see precisely the kind of disaster which is being devised for Malton/Norton if there is added the additional proposals contained in Scenario 4A (which of course coincides exactly with the Councils preferred options for the LDF).
The only possible conclusion that one can draw from the Report is that all the main junctions in Malton are already over capacity, and that therefore there is no room to accommodate all of the proposed 17% increase in convenience retail shopping retention in Malton, as is proposed in Policy CS7 of the Ryedale Plan, which seeks to direct 2,801 sq.m of new “food retailing space” to Malton (or indeed much of other kinds of development – including new housing).
Q. Are there copies of the draft Ryedale Plan and of the STA on the web?
Return to Election Menu
|
