RYEDALE DISTRICT COUNCIL

THE RYEDALE PLAN (RYEDALE'S CORE STRATEGY NOW OUT TO CONSULTATION)

Submission of Councillor Paul Andrews on Retail  (Section 5)

I would refer you to following documents:

• RTP draft report dated September 2008;
• RTP Report adopted by RDC on 15th December 2010;
• Reports by WSP produced to members in March 2008 and April 2009 respectively;
• Plan produced by a local estate agent showing the likely commercial catchment area for Malton/Norton (ex13);
• The saved provisions of the Ryedale Local Plan;
• Jacobs’ Report on Strategic Traffic Assessment ;
• The officer reports to Committee meetings on Aldi held on 13th April, 11th May and 8th June, together with the analysis of the Aldi application in two separate reports produced respectively to the !3th April and 11th May meetings (please obtain these from RDC).
• The Ryedale Plan (the draft Core Strategy for the LDF).
• The attached exhibits not listed above.

I wish to make the following observations and objections:

Car Park Fees

Car Park fees are relevant to the LDF, because Ryedale DC has for a long time been trying to justify the sale of Wentworth Street Car Park because they say it is “underused”and it has been classified as such in all the documents and reports which have led to the LDF. The following summary shows that the main reason it is underused is because the Council has priced itself out of business in regard to car park charges there, and in doing so has acted with full knowledge, against official advice contained in the Lockwood Survey, the Yorkshire Forward ““Renaissance Market Towns Programme – Car parking Research”, the recommendations of their own consultants, Jacobs, in their “Malton Town Centre Public Realm Improvements Final Report” and the findings of their own Scrutiny Committee.

Car Park fees were put up by 25% on 1st April 2005. This resulted in an immediate reduction in car park income from Malton Car Parks, which continued on a downward trend. In recommending the increase and/or in subsequent debates the officers failed to give any weight to the recommendations of the Lockwood Survey 2002, which concluded that for district centres (ie. towns like Malton/Norton) “the optimum level of parking provision is between 45 and 89 spaces per 1000sq.m. of gross shopping floorspace; at least 85% of parking should be within 5 minutes walk of the principal shopping streets and charges of up to £1-00 for three hours and £1-50 for 4 hours encourage consumer spending.”

Since then car park charges have risen by at least another 35% - well above the rate of inflation.

Tourist centres like Helmsley and Pickering could stand these increases, but they had a severe negative impact on Malton shops, which was denied by officers.

From July 18th 2006 to September 2007, the Council piloted a fees trial on WWSCP. Fees were reduced to £1.50 for all day, while the charge for one hour was set at £1.00. The trial ended in September 2007 when the old  charges were reimposed. However, the trial was not reviewed until a report was brought to committee on 30th February 2007. Neither the Council nor its officers were prepared to delay the reimposition of the pre-trial charges until it had been reviewed – Please see note attached (Ex1).*

In November 2008 Scrutiny Committee reviewed the officer’s review of the Fees Trial. It was pointed out that the officers’ report had not taken into account the fact that fee revenue from Malton Car Parks was already in decline when the trial was started, and on  that basis, it could be seen that although revenue during the trial had been less than previous years at the beginning of the trial, as the low fees became more well known, fee income had risen to a higher level than would have been obtained if the old fees had remained in force and revenue had continued to decline at the previous rate. I enclose excel file to show this (Ex2).*

The Committee’s report included the following:

·  Whilst over the period of the trial, the figures show some decline in overall revenues across all malton car parks,  there was evidence from previous years that there was a trend of declining income: the rate of decline reduced during the trial period, but it was not apparent that this was a result of the trial.

·  During the period of the trial, taking all factors into account, it is difficult to argue either way with certainty as to the success of the trial.

In other words the committee did not accept the conclusions of the officers’ report. A copy of the committee’s findings with my notes is annexed (Ex3).

The Scrutiny Report was duly noted by committee but no further action was taken on it. There was no reduction in fees.

In 2007 Yorkshire Forward produced a document entitled “Renaissance Market Towns Programme – Car parking Research – a detailed report on how parking can be managed in the region’s towns”. This contained recommendations, inter alia, for charging different fees in different towns, but instead of taking note of this and reporting to the Council accordingly, officers relied on a few phrases in the document to argue that what it really was saying was that the level of car parking fees did not have an appreciable impact on where people go to shop. Please see note enclosed (Exhibit 4).

The extortionate level of car park fees had such a depressing impact on the revenue of Malton shops that the Fitzwilliam Estate (FWE), the landlord of most of the town’s shops and the freeholder of Market Place, decided to terminate the Council’s lease of Market Place and make car parking there free. They took it over in May 2009, they say at a cost to FWE of £100,000 pa. The Council, however, is upset because it has lost £80,000 gross (£40,000 net) income.

On 17th July 2009 Jacobs, acting for the Council, produced the “Malton Town Centre Public Realm Improvements Final Report”. This included a recommendation for reducing the number of town centre free car parking spaces by more than 62 and pedestrianising the road above the church to cars, thus preventing cars from going round the market place while searching for car parking spaces. The report recommends that, as an essential element to the scheme, a car parking strategy (including fees) should be agreed between all the major stakeholders (including FWE), so as to encourage use of WWSCP. The kind of strategy which we are talking about could perhaps involve a reduction in long term car park fees at WWCP in return for a reduction of the free car parking period allowed in Market Place - eg.  1 hour free in Market Place in return for reduction of long stay fees in WWSCP to £1.50 all day. I understand FWE have written to the Council on this part of the report, but the Council have failed to respond, whilst at the same time pressing on with the rest of the scheme.

It will be seen that in dealing with Car Park fees in Malton, the Council has ignored the recommendations/ findings in the Lockwood Survey, its own Scrutiny Committee, the Yorkshire Forward Car Parking Research document and the Jacobs report on Malton Town Centre Public Realm Improvements. Yet Ryedale continues to say that WWSCP is redundant and/or underused. The Council has in fact deliberately managed its Malton Car Parks badly in the full knowledge that they were pricing themselves out of business.

The LDF - history

The  various consultants reports which have been used to underpin the LDF commissioned by the Council should be treated with caution because they  seem to rely on questionable assumptions, bald statements unsupported by evidence, flawed logic, and unexplained inconsistencies and contradictions within and between reports. The  following explains my concerns in regard to these reports.

Mid 2007 the Council instructed consultants WSP to prepare a “Malton Town Centre Strategy”.

 IN August 2007 FWE submitted a planning application for the redevelopment of the Cattle Market with a 16,000 sq.ft Waitrose type trolley supermarket and 7 non food retail units, together with underground car parking. They intended to invest £20M in the project. The purpose was to enhance their investment in the town by encouraging more top to mid range customers to shop in Malton, and use the town centre shops. FWE say the Council deliberately procrastinated with dealing with this proposal. The Council blames FWE.

In March 2008, the Council produced to members the first report by WSP on a Malton Town Centre Strategy (commissioned mid-2007). Its most controversial recommendation was, in effect, the sale of Wentworth Street Car Park to a supermarket operator. The report was relatively short and contained no data, tables, charts or calculations to justify its conclusions. It is, to say the least, unusual for such a short document to be produced after such a long gestation with so little verifiable supporting evidence.

This report cited, as a reason for the sale, the alleged underuse of WWSCP

.

There was public outrage, and the Council agreed to set up a strategy group comprising local members and all the “main stakeholders”. The Council clearly intended the Strategy Group to look at all potential options, but the Chairman of the Group refused to allow any discussion on any of the options except those identified by WSP. So we were not allowed to discuss the FWE project and compare it with the WSP proposals for WWSCP. I enclose copy email to the Chief Executive on this (Ex 5).*

The Strategy Group was never formally wound up. At the last meeting (I think in June 2008), no date for another meeting was set, and it was suggested that the Malton/Norton Partnership should consider the Strategy. However, this was never done.

In August 2008 the Council carried out a public “consultation” exercise on the WSP proposals for the Town Centre Strategy. No alternatives were offered to the Sale of Wentworth Street Car Park to a supermarket operator. This was the only option put forward in respect of Wentworth Street Car Park. So it was not a real consultation: it was a selling exercise. Even so, only 47% of public who responded like d the idea and 43% were against it. This result has been interpreted by the Council as majority acceptance of the report’s proposals. (1500 members of the public attended the meeting , but the number who submitted written comments were less than this).

In September 2008 RTP, the council’s economic consultants sent the Council a draft report entitled: “Ryedale Retail Capacity Update”(Ex6). This was in draft. It compared the relevant sites and concluded that “the well-located Cattlemarket Site is a suitable, viable and imminently available site, of a sufficient size to accommodate good-quality retail led development” (Page 28). It referred to the FWE proposals in a way that seems to support them. The same report says of Wentworth Street Car Park that “although the site may be suitable for retail development in the longer-term we do not consider that it represents a short-term development opportunity”(Page 29). This report (dated September 2008) was not submitted to members until March 2009. Again, it is surprising that such an important report should have had so long a gestation.

In the meantime (ie after June 2008) the “stakeholders” including representatives of Malton businesses and senior members of Malton Town Council met and worked up a scheme called “The Malton/Norton Revitalisation Plan”. This involved the FWE Cattle Market redevelopment, the relocation of the Livestock Market to Pasture Lane or alternative site, and the construction of a four way grade separated junction between Broughton Road and the A64 – to be paid for out of development contributions from land between Pasture Lane and Broughton Road.

In November FWE withdrew their Cattle Market planning application, on the basis that this was something they would pursue through the LDF.

In November and December  2008 the Council’s leader and chief executive met the “Revitalisation Group” and discussed the Revitalisation Plan. They agreed to put the “Revitalisation Plan” to Council committee, but instead of this, in a letter dated 9th December 2008 written by the Chief Executive, they agreed that the “Malton Town Centre Strategy” would be dealt with through the LDF. The Malton Town centre Strategy includes Wentworth Street Car Park (WWSCP). (copy correspondence enclosed –Ex 7).*

In March 2009, the officers produced to committee the second WSP report. This was in the form of a CD, with many appendices. One of these, Appendix D, contained the draft 2008 Retail Capacity Study by RTP referred to above. This was the first occasion this report  (the 2008 FTP Report) had been seen by  any council committee.Few Council members would have the time or the patience to study these lengthy documents. So they would rely on a brief reading of the officers’ summaries of the reports. These supported the proposal for a supermarket on WWSCP. This is in contrast to the actual recommendations of RTP and also to Page 22 of the second WSP Report (Ex 8) which actually recommends against a new store on WWSCP in the short term.*

The Second WSP report depended on quantitative need figures produced by RTP, because WSP produced no figures of their own. Even so, there are inconsistencies and contradictions between both documents, and some of these are set out in the enclosed notes (Ex9). None of these points were drawn to members’ attention. I attach my note of the committee and council debates(ex10 and 11).**

The said RTP Report analysed the quantitative need for new convenience retail floor space (Table 3.4 –Page 16), It will be seen that up tot 2013, the need is either 330 net sq m. Sales space or 927 sq. m (depending on whether or not there is a static or rising retention) and for the years 2008-2021, either 1,046 sq.m or 2,698 sq. m. net.

As regards whether or not the “rising retention” hypothesis has any weight, reference should be made to para.5.12 on Page 27 which shows that the area immediately surrounding Malton/Norton already has an 80% retention rate. See also notes below.

Nevertheless on May 12th 2009, the Council granted permission for a total of 1,800 sq.m net or thereabouts when giving permission for an extension to Morrisons and a new Lidl store. The Lidl store was outside the town’s commercial limits and, in my opinion, no permission should have been granted without changing the commercial limits in the local plan. Copies of my notes of the debate are enclosed(Ex12). *

This has been followed by the grant on appeal of  planning permission for another Lidl, this time at Pickering, earlier this year (2010), and the grant of planning ermission for an Aldi store in Malton a few months ago. (NB: the reason for refusal of the Lidl application at Pickering was on highways grounds only).

It will be seen that, on the basis of the RTP Report, the Council in granting these permissions, would seem to have actually exceeded the quantitative capacity figures recommended in that report for 2013 for new convenience retail, and taken up a large portion of the capacity up to 2021.

LDF – Recent history - Planning

As mentioned, over the last few years, RDC  has produced a number of consultants’ reports in regard to the need for new commercial retail in Ryedale.  These reports rely on questionable assumptions, bald statements unsupported by evidence, flawed logic, and unexplained inconsistencies and contradictions within and between reports. I can provide copies of the detailed analyses I made and circulated on these documents on request. Some of them are on my website. The last of these reports was the Jacobs “Strategic Transport Assessment” which included an inaccurate and misleading list (ex14) of “sites likely to be developed first” (compiled by Ryedale – not by Jacobs) and the absurd conclusion that what the Council wants would not create unacceptable traffic congestion. I attach a copy of this list, so that you can see what I mean. Even so, it is clear from these reports that there is very little room for new convenience retail in Malton/Norton now.

I attach a copy of an article (ex15) I wrote on this subject, which makes the position clear.

All these reports need to be considered by an impartial inspector at a public enquiry or examination in public. The point is that the reports  refer to a number of competing sites, which need to be weighed against each other through the LDF process. Otherwise, the LDF will be decided on an ad hoc, first come first served basis. For example, the Council has its own preferred site, Wentworth Street Car Park, which it wants to dispose of to a supermarket, in order to obtain a big capital receipt.  The Council’s leaders are even now pushing this through the Council ahead of the LDF, and I enclose a copy of another newspaper article (ex16) I published in the week’s Gazette which explains the current position in regard to this. This just will not do. If we carry on like this, there will be a free for all. Planning should not be allowed to become  finance led. The future should be planned properly on a comprehensive and balanced basis, which benefits the community.

I now refer to the “Supplementary Advice on Convenience Retail Provision” issued  by RTP and dated December 2009. This report was approved by the Council on 15th December 2009.  It purports to be an update of the September 2008 Report  by the same consultants.There is much which I could comment on, but I will confine my comments to six points, some of which will be seen to also apply to the September 2008 Report:

• Firstly, Para. 3.6 refers to an aspiration to increase the convenience retail retention in the “Overall Catchment Area” from 62.7% to 80%.
• Secondly, the “Overall Catchment Area” shown in the map on table 3.1 on Page 14 of the 2009 report divides this area into six sub-areas, and the September 2008 Report (which this one supplements) indicates that the convenience retail retention of the sub-area numbered 6 is already 80% (Page 37 para 5.12 of the 2008 Report).
• Thirdly, the question arises as to whether an increase from 62.7% to 80% in the rest of the “OCA” is realistic. I refer to the attached plan (ex13) produced by a local surveyor. This shows the boundary of Ryedale (not of the OCA) and also the boundary of the area which he would consider is the retail catchment area for Malton/Norton. It will be seen that the boundary of the catchment area for Malton/Norton is set roughly at the mid-way point between Malton/Norton and other centres (eg. York, Scarborough, Easingwold, Thirsk/Northallerton, Driffield etc.). Now, as the recommendation is to concentrate all the new convenience retail space into Malton/Norton, the question is: is it likely that more people outside the surveyor’s suggested Malton/Norton retail catchment area will ever prefer to do their shopping in Malton/Norton in preference to the much bigger , nearer and more varied centres such as York, Scarborough or Driffield etc – however many super markets are built in Malton/Norton?
• Fourthly, it should be noted how the surveyor’s boundary of the Malton/Norton catchment area includes a hatched area, this being the catchment area of Pickering. If this is taken out of the Malton/Norton catchment area, then the Malton/Norton catchment area will be seen to be very much smaller and not a lot larger than the area shown as sub-area 6 in the plan to the Report – where the convenience retail retention rate is already 80%.
• Fifthly, Table 3.2 on page 16 deals with the quantitative need in the convenience goods sector for Ryedale on the basis of a rising retention scenario (ie increasing the retention from 62.7% to 80%). According to this  the quantitative need for the WHOLE of Ryedale up to 2013 is 417sq.m, and up to 2021 is 2,164 sq.m. Now it would seem to me that this does not mean that on 1st January 2013, the quantitative need will suddenly increase from 417sq. m to 2,164 sq.m !! One would have thought that this means that by the END of 2021, there MIGHT  be a need for another 2,164 sq.m. This would probably depend on population growth – and in this respect it may be material that in December 2009 there were regional and district housing targets, whereas now there are none. It should be noted that since this report planning permission has been granted on appeal for a new Lidl supermarket at Pickering, and also for an ALDI at Norton.
• Sixthly, the main purpose of the December 2009 supplementary report was to accommodate the two decisions to grant planning permission for some 1,800 sq,m. net of convenience retail shopping space to Morrisons and Lidl (Norton)on May 12th 2009. Para. 3.12 of the 2009 report seeks to explain this away by saying: “Indeed deep discount supermarkets such as Lidl typically achieve convenience sales densities of around £ 3,000 per sq.m., and supermarket extensions generally achieve sales densities which are around 50% of the company average”. Neither of these statements is supported by evidence in the report. The second statement (50% sales density for an extension) defies common sense, and is not the experience of Morrisons in Malton, which has already had one huge extension. What is the difference between a store with 3,000 sq.m and one which started at 2,000sq.m. and has been extended by another 1,000sq.m? In the case of Morrisons, Malton, the existing store (including the first extension) is already densely populated with sales stands and one of the reasons given for further expansion is the need for more space.

It is reasonable to conclude from the above that:

• the Council’s ambition to increase convenience retail retention by 17% is misplaced and that there is little room for new convenience retail in Malton/Norton.
• The figures and tables referred to above are taken forward into the LDF itself, and are therefore important.
• From a qualitative point of view, there is a need to support malton Town Centre. The previous FWE proposals for a small 1600sq.m upper market Waitrose located immediately adjacent to the existing town centre could achieve this.

• Anything larger, or any proliferation of supermarkets are likely to destroy the town centres of both Malton and Norton, because there is not the quantitative capacity to support them and the new stores, and independent town centre shops will inevitably be more vulnerable than the bigger stores.  

The Highway Issues

Jacobs were instructed to provide a strategic highways assessment for Malton. A draft of this was, I believe, provided to Ryedale at the beginning of November last, and I have a letter (ex17) from the Planning Office dated 23rd November, which confirms that Ryedale had this on 23rd November 2009. I 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 Report 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. I attach a note (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 list includes the Aldi site (it’s the site listed as “Former Dewhirst Factory, Welham Road”), which officers subsequently recommended for refusal.

Further, you will see on this list a number of sites listed for convenience retail. 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: Livesstock 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)

It is quite clear to me that this list could not possibly have been prepared either by Jacobs or by Ryedale’s planning officers.

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 pag 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.

 SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE ALDI APPLICATION

The site is outside the commercial limits of both Malton and Norton Town Centres, in accordance with the saved provisions of the Ryedale Local Plan.

This matter was considered at three meetings of Ryedale’s Planning Committee, on 13th April, 11th May and 8th June.

At the meeting of 13th April, members were not invited to make a decision, and resolved to visit the site. The officers’ report included an Audit by the Council’s consultants, RTP, on the development proposal. This concluded as follows:

“6.13 In sum we have the following reservations regarding the proposed Aldi superstore:

• In our assessment there is likely to be insufficient convenience expenditure capacity to support the turnover requirements of the proposed convenience floorspace at 2011 (the applicant’s design year)
• We are not persuaded that there is a qualitative need for a third discount foodstore in Malton/Norton, particularly in an edge of centre location.
• Allied to an apparent lack of quantitative need, we are concerned that the proposed foodstore could potentially have an adverse effect on the vitality and viability of Malton and Norton town centres, particularly given the likely cumulative impact of two edge-of-centre discount foodstore applications.

6.14 Taking all the foregoing factors into account, we conclude that the scheme should not be supported.”

The same consultants reported to the meeting of 11th May as follows:

“4.61 Policy EC 17.2 of pps4 advises that where no significant adverse impacts have been identified under Policy EC10.2 (which is outside the scope of our instruction) and policy 16.1, then planning applications should be determined by taking account of:

1. The positive and negative impacts in terms of Policies EC10.2 and 16.1 and any other material considerations; and
2. The likely cumulative effect of recent permissions, developments under construction and completed developments.

4.62 In our assessment the proposed Aldi foodstore is likely to have some positive effects. However, as we have advised the Council previously, we consider that there is only scope for one new discount store in Norton. In our assessment, a further store in Norton – over and above the approved Lidl store – has the potential to result in unacceptable impacts on town centre trade. We also consider that the proposed Aldi store threatens the prospects of securing additional convenience sector provision within or adjacent to Malton Town Centre and the associated enhancement of consumer choice.

4.63 We therefore recommend that in order to protect the future health of Norton Town Centre(in particular) and not jeopardise the prospects of securing enhanced convenience sector provision in Malton, the proposal for a second discount foodstore in Norton should be resisted on the basis that it does not satisfy the criteria a,b, and c of PPS4 Policy EC16.1”

The officers at the meeting of May 11th accordingly recommended refusal for the following reasons:

“ The proposed retail development would, as a result of cumulative retail impact of recent decisions and development under construction, and adverse trade diversion, adversely impact on:

• The ability of Malton Town Centre to provide customers with an enhanced choice;
• The ability of the Local Planning Authority to strengthen the retail vitality and viability of Malton Town Centre with a consequential stemming of leakage from the catchment area; and
• The vitality and viability of Norton Town Centre

And is thereby contrary to the provisions of Policy EC16.1 a,b and c of PPS4- Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth.”

There were two other reasons relating to land drainage and the impact of noise of the childrens’ nursery on neighbouring residents.

Members declined to accept the officers’ recommendations and the advice of the consultants and resolved to grant permission.

An attempt was made to get the Aldi application called in. However, the secretary of state was unable to interfere, because the impact of granting consent was unlikely to be more than local.

You will note the reference in both the second RTP assessment and the officers’ recommendation: the proposal“threatens the prospects of securing additional convenience sector provision within or adjacent to Malton Town Centre and the associated enhancement of consumer choice”. The officers’ text is not in these same words, but echoes them. In other words, what this boils down to is a clear statement that if the Council authorises the Aldi proposal, this would prejudice the Council’’s plan for a new supermarket in Malton.

Yet, notwithstanding the grant of the Aldi planning permission and the consultants’ and officers’ advice, on 24th June the Council’s Policy and Resources Committee resolved to recommend full council to put Wentworth Street Car Park out to tender to seven parties, all of whom were interested in buying the land for development which includes a supermarket – or perhaps even a superstore. In view of their decision in regard to Aldi, this cannot be described as the decision of a reasonable authority.

The decision was taken on financial grounds only. The idea is to sell the car park subject to planning, and then let the developer apply for planning permission. The Council will say that the planning issues will be decided properly in a planning context – and that “Chinese” walls can be placed between land owndership and the planning process.

In conclusion, the Council in granting planning permission for Aldi has clearly granted a permission which makes it impossible for the Council to fulfil the LDF (Policy CS7) aims of providing 2,801 sq. m. of new food retailing space  without substantially exceeding all recommended quantitative capacity for new convenience shopping space.

THE RYEDALE PLAN

The Council debated its preferred options for the Ryedale Plan on 15th December 2009. My note of the debate is included in Exhibit 20. It will be seen that members were expected to make decisions without having first seen any report on strategic transport assessment. Indeed it is suggested that the LDF is unsustainable in terms of traffic generation, new convenience retail provision, and also in respect of many other  matters relating to infrastructure.

“The Ryedale Plan” (Ryedale’s draft Core Strategy for the LDF) was published to members only before the Council meeting of 29th July. The section in regard to “Town Centres and Retailing” is included in Section 5 and starts at para. 5.13. The text of this document makes no reference to highway considerations or specifically to the various WSP and RTP reports. Par. 5.24 introduces the concept of a “Northern Arc which lies to the north of the town and stretches from the existing livestock market to Wentworth Street Car poark”. I can find no reference to this in any of the various Consultants’ reports, particularly bearing in mind the adverse comments made about the suitability of WWSCP by both WSP and RTP, as mentioned above.

Further Policy CS 7 states that “approximately 2,801 sq.m. of food retailing space will be directed to Malton. Any proposal that subsequently exceeds this figure will be required to demonstrate impact on existing town centre uses.” The figure of 2,801 comes from RTP’s 2009 update – on the basis of its various flawed assumptions , including the assumed increased retention   of 17% and a projection to 2026 (not 2021). There is not the slightest hint or suggestion that that this massive increase should be phased, in spite of the clear indications contained in the two RTP reports that it should be.

The “Ryedale Plan was debated by members on 2nd August 2010, and it was resolved to put this document out to consultation. There was much discussion, but a closure motion was moved and passed half way through the debate on Section 4 (housing). The outcome is that the Ryedale Plan is now about to go out for consultation without the section on “Economy” having been debated or discussed by members at all.

The Revitalisation Plan

In 2008, representatives of local business, FWE, the livestock auctioneers and local civic leaders got together to produce an alternative to the Council’s proposals. These alternative proposals are as follows:

• Transfer of the Livestock Market to another site;
• Redevelopment of the Cattle Market as in the FWE proposals (ie. 1600sq.m. Waitrose type trolley food store, and seven new comparison units);
• Retention of Wentworth Street Car Park as a long stay car park;
• Construction of a new four-way grade separated road junction between the A64 and Broughton Road;
• Construction of 400-600 new houses between Broughton Road and Pasture Lane and other development (the “enabling land”), as enabling development  to pay for the above (it was recognised that the cost might have to be subsidised by grants).

As regards the cost of a motorway intersection, the plan was to keep the existing bridge and construct four slip roads leading to two mini-roundabouts on either side of the bridge. According to a highways document prepared by the County Council’s highway consultants earlier in the decade, the cost of this was estimated at £ 2.5M. However, Ryedale then came up with a series of estimates which varied from £10M - £15M, without indicating whether or not this was with or without a second bridge. Eventually, the Jacobs Strategic Transport Assessment of February 2010 (referred to above) provided another estimate (as I recall with a basic sum of about £6M, which was increased to double that figure so as to allow for contingencies etc.).

In the meantime, Ryedale had supported a planning application by Malton School for a new sports hall, including an outdoor Multi-use Games Area (MUGA). The Revitalisation Group, myself and others asked the school, RDC and the County Council to insist that the MUGA be aligned in such a way as not to prejudice the construction of a slip road from the bridge, but Ryedale would not support this, nor would the school, and the County Council granted planning permission for the MUGA with a fence which goes right up to the road embankment. This will make the construction of at lease one slip road that much more difficult and expensive. It is not clear if this is allowed for in Jacobs’ estimate.

Further, the Council has also taken the view that they should ignore the saved town development limits so as to be able to grant planning permission for residential development outside them. The consequence of this is that they are currently negotiating the grant of planning permission for over 300 new houses on the "enabling land" without requiring the developers to contribute towards the cost of a four way grade separated junction between Broughton Road and the A64. If the Council allows this to go ahead, this will be another blow to the Revitalisation Scheme.

One does not have to be a genius to anticipate the consequences of the Council’s decisions. If large numbers of new houses are built on the “enabling land”, there will be no direct access to the A64, and this will result in a huge increase of traffic passing through Malton town centre, through junctions which Jacobs acknowledge are already over-capacity. Add to this the traffic from the proposed superstore at Wentworth Street Car Park, and what still is a quiet country market town will have been catastrophically changed for ever into one of the UK’s worst possible traffic nightmares.

As mentioned above, the Revitalisation Plan was put to the Council’s Chief Executive and Leader at two meetings in November/December 2008(See Ex 7). However, as described above, the Council has failed to give this plan any due or fair consideration, as they had promised. I would ask the Inspector to consider the “Revitalisation Plan”, in whole or in part, as an alternative to the Council’s plan.

 Shops selling comparison goods

It is common ground that the comparison sector is not as well represented in Malton/Norton as it could be. The reason for this is partly due to the small size of the traditional shops which are situate in the conservation area within the town centre.

It is understood that FWE have endeavoured to correct this by substantially rebuilding a fire damaged shop  on Wheelgate, and by their Cattle Market proposals, which include seven new retail units to be built to a specification which should be acceptable to most of the national multiples which sell comparison goods.

I do not believe that the existence of a superstore selling convenience and other goods will improve the vitality and viability of Malton’s comparison centre, and there is little evidence in the various consultants’ reports to support this idea.

Conclusion

In the circumstances, I would invite the inspector either to delete the whole of Paras 5.13 – 5.27 and CS7 from the LDF and to recommend substantial changes.