RESPONSE TO LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK QUESTIONAIRE

Question 1 – In recent years, do you think the amount of new housing and employment development in Ryedale has been about right, too much or too little?

Housing development has been about right, but employment development has not progressed fast enough for local employment.

Question 2 . Are there any other key issues that should influence where future development is located in Ryedale?

Yes, the need to enhance local services – not just to maintain those that are there now.

Question 3. which of three scenarios do you think is most appropriate for the Ryedale Local Development Framework?

I am a parish councillor as well as a district councillor, and so I think I can speak for both the market towns and the villages.

I think the policies appropriate to both should be different. My preference would be a combination of Options 1 and 2. Let me explain:

The needs for villages are different from those of the market towns. Villages have few facilities in terms of shops, pubs, public transport etc., and there is therefore a need to expand them to a limited extent to make the available facilities more viable and attract others. On the other hand, one should take care to avoid the kind of expansion which will lead to gentrification, commuterisation, the loss of the local village identity or an influx of people looking for a retirement home.

On the other hand, the market towns need to maintain their wider facilities, including viable town centre shops.

As regards housing, therefore, I would like to see:

• All large scale development confined to the market towns. I would define large scale as meaning developments of more than 20 houses.

• At least 30% of dwellings should be affordable and kept available for families with a local connection with Ryedale

Smaller scale development should generally be permitted in villages, provided that:

• In regard to design, the development is in keeping with the village;

• At least 30% of all new development is affordable and reserved for people with a local connection with Ryedale

• Usual highway and amenity considerations, and policies in regard to infilling etc.

• The size of the development (and the aggregate size of all new development within the village) is not disproportionate in relation to the existing settlement, so as to threaten the local identity and character of the village community. In this respect, I think the views of the Parish Council should be given considerable weight.

• I would relax policies regarding strict village development limits, and replace these with a general presumption that all new development in existing village settlements should be concentrated within the general area covered by the village (i.e. adjacent to existing development) and not be allowed to straggle out into the open countryside

I would hope that the identification of large-scale sites in the “Urban Capacity” document will not prevent limited development continuing in the villages.

As regards employment, I would suggest:

 Generally speaking, new employment development should not be permitted in villages or the open countryside except:

 Where there is a need to expand existing estates (e.g. the one at Sheriff Hutton)

 Local shops, pubs, post offices etc. in villages

 Businesses which relate to agricultural or equestrian activities

 I think most employment development should be concentrated on industrial estates in or just outside the market towns. As regards Malton/Norton, it is absolutely imperative that more employment land is made available for local industry. There should be new estates or the existing ones should be expanded. They should be laid out using public money, and there should be a range of unit sizes (i.e. from garage workshop size to say 10,000 sq. ft. units), so that businesses can upsize or downsize locally, depending on their success. I think the units themselves can be funded privately on a lease/lease-back basis (i.e. the council leases the land on a long lease; the developer takes the lease and leases it back to the Council, which then lets the units to tenants – if you want to find out how this is done, please enquire of the Commission for the New Towns in respect of Corby – development in the early 1980’s when the steel works closed). Above all the units should be in sizes which can be afforded by LOCAL business.

 There should be a general presumption against large scale retail development, as I do not think any town in Ryedale has the necessary infrastructure in regard to highways etc. to sustain this kind of development. I also believe this kind of development can be a serious threat to the viability of existing town centre shops.

 Something should be done to reinvigorate the cattle market at Malton – as a cattle market – or to moving it to another site in Malton.

 Wentworth Street Car Park should be made a real long-stay car park, either by charging lower fees than in other car parks or by increasing the charged for time.

Question 4 In which market towns should major housing /industrial development be focused?

Malton/Norton 1
Pickering 2
Helmsely 3
Kirby Moorside 4

Question 5 Which of three listed services or facilities do you consider a village should have before significant development is permitted there? Are there any villages in Ryedale where no development should be permitted?

I think this is the wrong question. If development is not allowed in villages which have no facilities, they will simply become gentrified or commuterised and the local community will disappear. If small-scale development is allowed, subject to the points made in my answer to Question 3 above, this will encourage new businesses to open or at least prevent existing businesses closing – not only in the village itself, but also in the surrounding villages – and keep the local community alive.

It is also wrong to treat each village in isolation. For example, Great Habton does not have a local shop, but there is a butcher’s shop not far away in Swinton, which residents of Great Habton use, and is closer than Malton. Further small-scale development in surrounding villages, such as Great Habton, will contribute to the viability of the shop in Swinton. In other words, some account should be taken of the fact that most newcomers will have cars!

This is very important in the case of local schools, particularly primary schools. These usually serve catchments of several villages, and if rolls fall, they risk closure. So, development in the surrounding villages, which do not have a school, will often help maintain the school’s rolls.

The correct question should be: which three facilities do you think each village community should be, or become encouraged to be, big enough to support? My answer to that question would be a pub, a church and a post office.

Question 6 How should we increase the provision of affordable housing, in order to address the scale of local need? What other options are there to increase the provision of affordable housing?

I think the existing policies are adequate, and I am waiting to see them yield results. However, I would like to see more affordable shared-ownership houses built by developers, subject to restrictions imposed by Section 106 Agreements, which would keep the price low and make each property available on sale to people with a local connection with Ryedale. The Council’s Housing Unit should have an enforcement role and a say in nominating or approving buyers, when the property is sold.

Although this is not strictly for the Local Development Framework, I am wondering if it can be a condition of giving permission for social housing on exception sites to the effect that the properties should be reserved for applicants who have a local connection with Ryedale?

Question 7 Are there any specialist forms of housing that you think should be encouraged through the local development framework?

Housing for the elderly should be provided mainly in the market towns

Question 8 Should the Local Development Framework allocate sites for business needs? If so, where should these be located?

See my answer to Question 3.

Question 9 Should the Local Development Framework restrict the re-use of rural buildings in favour of industrial, commercial, tourism or recreational use?

The present policy of permitting the conversion of disused agricultural buildings into holiday lets, but refusing conversion into ordinary dwellings is absolute nonsense. There are far too many holiday lets in Ryedale already, and far too few homes for local people. So the policy should be reversed: conversion into ordinary dwellings should be permitted and there should be a presumption against holiday lets. 30% of conversions, or at least one unit of every development, should be affordable houses – preferably shared ownership on the basis indicated in my answer to Question 6.

Question 10 How best can we support agriculture and a healthy rural economy whilst ensuring that development is sustainable?

Agriculture is a national and not a local issue, but the Council can help by granting permission for conversions of disused farm buildings, as indicated above. Farmers work hard enough already, and it should not be necessary for them to “diversify”. However, that is a national issue and diversification should be allowed in regard to such matters as will not prejudice the amenity of neighbours or of the countryside.

If the countryside is spoilt by developments classed as “diversification”, this could adversely affect tourism and “kill the goose that lays the golden egg”.

Question 11 Should the Local Development Framework focus new tourist accommodation and facilities in places that have good transport links?

Yes, provided the amenities of neighbouring property are protected, and the development is without detriment to rural amenity.

Question 12 What actions can be taken to improve the quality of Ryedale’s town centres? Should the Local Development Framework aim to safeguard existing village shops and services?

Yes. There should be no more large stores in Ryedale, and existing large retail outlets should not be allowed to expand.

Question 13 How best can we promote energy efficiency and renewable energy production in our sensitive area? What steps should the Local Development Framework take to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

Is it possible to impose planning conditions requiring all new houses to have some form of solar heating?

Is it possible to persuade Housing Associations, when building social housing, to include in the electricity substation for each estate or development a set of solar panels, which would complement the electricity supply and save electricity supply costs?

Question 14 Are there any aspects of Ryedale environment that you think are being harmed through recent development? How could these effects be reduced?

I can’t honestly think of any – although every development increases surface water run-off and this could have an impact on land drainage and flooding.

Question 15 What developments would you particularly like to see happen in your area?

 As regards Great Habton, you are aware of my support for the proposed development at Manor Farm.

 As regards Malton:

 A new publicly funded and developed industrial estate, as mentioned in my answer to Question 3;

 A dry sports centre at Malton School

 Generally speaking, Malton could do with some more residential development, in order to support local town centre businesses.

 Generally speaking, I would accept the comments made on the sites referred to in the “Urban Capacity Study” – provided these are not to the exclusion of all other sites, particularly in the rural areas. Presumably, “windfall” sites will still get planning permission in appropriate circumstances. However, I would not expect to see the cattle market site at Malton redeveloped, unless a suitable alternative site is found for the cattle market within Malton.

Question 16 Are there any other criteria that you think we should assess potential development sites against?

Subject to the above, the existing criteria are fine. I have only skimmed the “Sustainability Appraisal”, but again, subject to all the points made in this questionnaire, it looks reasonable to me.

Obviously, a higher standard of planning is required in high amenity areas, such as the Howardian Hills than in the rest of the District.

Question 17

The following matters require attention:

• The A64 needs dualling throughout its entire length.

• As regards public transport, something needs to be done about the villages; there should be pressure for a railway station at Strensall, and for a better train service, and that pressure should extend to making Malton station car park free for season ticket holders again – in order to encourage increased rail use for environmental reasons.

• Malton/Norton also needs a proper motorway intersection at the Scagglethorpe end of the by-pass, for the use of traffic going to and from the bacon factory.

• Another intersection at the Broughton Road is also desirable.

• I understand there are already plans for a roundabout at the York end of the by-pass.

• I am concerned that there should be an adequate supply of smaller homes, and that some action should be taken to prevent small houses being converted into large ones by the addition of extensions. Can something be done about this policywise, please?

• There should be no loss of car parking spaces in Malton/Norton – if the police pursue their application for a new police station at Wentworth Street, replacement car park spaces should be found, and a new site for the fair.

NB. Generally speaking, although I will keep an open mind when considering any application, on the basis of current information, I cannot see how the Wentworth Street Car Park can be a suitable location for a police office – particularly, on road