RYEDALE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK

The Ryedale Plan – Employment and Economy

Representations of Councillor Paul Andrews, ward member for Malton

Paras 5.5 -5.12 and Policy CS6

In general I agree the main thrust of the Council’s proposals, subject to the following reservations:

1. As regards villages and the open countryside, I support the approach which allows for the expansion of existing businesses, and small scale buildings to support diversification schemes. However, such diversification must be appropriate to the rural and agricultural setting – in other words, businesses which support agriculture or equestrian businesses, the kind of businesses one would expect to find in a rural or village setting.
2. As regards the towns, it is proposed to allow development on sites “within, adjacent to and on the outskirts of the built up areas”. This is not good enough. The areas within which employment uses are going to be permitted should be defined on a map. Preferably, no non-agricultural employment use should be permitted north of the A64 bypass, which would seem to act like a natural boundary.
3. Further, the sequential test should apply, so that brownfield sites should be developed before consideration is given to developing Greenfield sites.
4. Further, when allocating sites for employment use, regard should be had to the impact of the proposals on the highways network.
5. Finally, the Council should recognise the importance of tourism within the district, and development proposals should not be allowed to prejudice this.

Specific reference should be made to a site at Eden Road, Malton. This is located north of the bypass, and is adjacent to Eden Camp, which is one of the prime visitor attractions for the entire North of England. It is an old POW camp which has been converted into a museum of the First and Second World Wars. A planning application came forward for this site in Autumn 2007. It included proposals for a “managed workshop” complex. This was hotly contested by the proprietors of Eden Camp who thought that the proximity of this proposal would prejudice their attraction.

The road junction with the Pickering road is a bad one, as is indicated on the attached correspondence - four separate entries below this one.

This application was opposed by local ward members, and after it had been passed, ward members used their influence to get it called in. The application was withdrawn after it had been called in.

The current  wording of the policy would give a green light to the repletion of these proposals – and indeed they have been included in the submissions made for the DPD. As the proposals include a managed workshop scheme, this gives Ryedale a vested financial interest in the development of the entire site.

The inspector is respectfully requested not to allow CS6 to go forward in its present form, but to amend it by recommending that no non-agricultural employment sites should be provided  north of the bypass, and also that sequential rules are followed.