| PS3L3 | Ag4 | m | (mr e barnett, age 50+, department of the environment adjudicator, Chairing the enquiry) unspecified |
| PS3L4 | Ag3 | m | (mr peter davis, age 40+, north yorkshire county council legal representative) unspecified |
| PS3L5 | Ag3 | f | (miss d whittaker, age 40+, senior inspector) unspecified |
| PS3L6 | Ag2 | m | (mr david curtis, age 30+, york city council legal representative) unspecified |
| PS3L7 | Ag2 | m | (mr ian smith, age 25+, ryedale district council legal representative) unspecified |
| PS3L8 | Ag3 | m | (mr steven grigson, age 40+, solicitor, from Barton Willmore) unspecified |
| PS3L9 | Ag2 | m | (mr malcolm spittle, age 30+, north yorkshire county council legal representative) unspecified |
| PS3LA | Ag2 | f | (mrs long, age 30+, north yorkshire county council legal representative) unspecified |
| PS3LB | Ag3 | m | (mr roy donson, age 35+, house builders' federation representative) unspecified |
| HVJPSUNK (respondent W0000) | X | u | (Unknown speaker, age unknown) other |
| HVJPSUGP (respondent W000M) | X | u | (Group of unknown speakers, age unknown) other |
| Unknown speaker (HVJPSUNK) |
[1] the participants for H Two will have already discovered, we are still tackling part of H One from yesterday, but, and I apologize that you will have to sit through the outstanding items of discussion. [2] On the other hand, you will have gathered already that we are going to talk about Greater York, so I think there may be some distinct benefit and merit in you being he here to listen to that, er particular part of the topic, now the, I hope in fact that we can deal with the remainder of H One, because it it does lead quite logically into the next issue which we want to talk about, which is the new settlement in the Greater York area, er and I hope that we can get through this item by our morning break, that but whenever we do conclude on H One we will have to have a slightly longer break just to enable the seating arrangements to be sorted out properly for all participants who are involved in the discussion on the new settlement. [3] Now can I er also suggest to you that in discussing this one outstanding item of the housing land allocations, we pursue virtually the same sort of approach that we did yesterday, er and in fact if you look at what is set down under matter One D for discussion, it says is the provision proposed for the Greater York area including the new settlement appropriate etcetera, and in fact when you look at the first item for discussion under the Greater York new settlement issue, we come straight into, does Greater York new settlement represent an appropriate and justified policy response, etcetera. [4] So what I'm going to ask effectively that when we are talking about the Greater York element of the housing land allocation we concentrate on the question of is the level of provision enough? [5] And we know there are various er responses to that question, and I would be looking to the districts to say whether or not they could cope with the various levels of provision that have been identified for Greater York, and it's the view of whether they can cope within their own districts, I haven't said how you can cope, I said whether you can cope, you might I will I will leave you free to make the odd comment, but I want to focus on that part of the issue, and then the natural corollary to that is, will it be necessary, or is it considered necessary in the context of this alteration to provide specific guidance within H One policy for the distribution of that er development to er at sub, what I would call sub-district level, in other words do you want a specific entry for say Ryedale or Hambledon? [6] Has anyone got any questions on that approach? [7] Is it clear how I'd like to play it? [8] Er so with no more ado I will ask Mr Davis for North Yorkshire to present his opening statement, and then I'd like Mr Curtis, your moment has come Mr Curtis, er to to follow on from Mr Davis. [9] Thank you. |
| mr peter davis (PS3L4) |
[10] Peter Davis, North Yorkshire County Council, erm I'd just like to make five brief points in response to the issues that have been raised erm on One D. [11] The first of those points is the principle of a Greater York dimension to the structure plan, erm we'll all probably be aware that in the original structure plan the Secretary of State wasn't prepared to accept a Greater York dimension in the structure plan, but did accept with the support of the district councils on the first alteration, the inclusion of a Greater York dimension. [12] Having that Greater York dimension has certainly allowed progress to be achieved dramatically in Greater York, erm, it's led to progress towards progress towards green belt definition, and more importantly it's led towards resolution of future strategy for Greater York. [13] Er we at the County Council think that to delete that Greater York erm dimension would take us back to the realms of uncertainty, past uncertainty, in the Greater York area, we're therefore proceeding with a Greater York dimension in policy H One at none thousand seven hundred dwellings, which equates to hundred percent migration. [14] The second point I want to raise is the issue erm of the green belt, er which is er a constraint in Greater York erm we've made significant progress in moving towards the statutory definition of the green belt, the green belt local plan has now completed erm its public enquiry, and a lot of the deliberations in Greater York have centred around the effect on of the green belt on development potential in Greater York, so that is a main issue, I think, in response to issues, the discussion of issues in Greater York. [15] The third point which has come out in a number erm of comments, certainly from the C P R E is the issue of overshoots in the approved structure plan in respect to Greater York, and as we made clear in paragraph eight of our er erm position statement, we accept that there has been in numeric terms in the period eighty one to ninety two something like fifteen percent overshoot in terms of completions er in that period. [16] We would wish to stress again, with the district council's support I suspect, that that overshoot really it's to sites within the urban area, as in windfall sites in general planning terms we have seen to be acceptable er in planning terms, but we would wish to stress that part part of that approach has been a continuing resistance to development on greenfield sites on the edge of the the urban area. [17] The fourth point, Chairman, er is the new settlement issue, and while that's due for discussion on policy H Two, that issue does shall I suggest invade policy H One, because an appropriate form of words has to be agreed in policy H One to reflect the new settlement issue and as you'll be aware the County Council is about a step by step approach towards the finalization of the new settlement erm strategy for Greater York, and then finally, a specific issue that you mentioned is the distribution of developments between the Greater York districts er within Greater York, now as you'll be aware Chairman, that has been done informally, following the original structure plan in nineteen eighty the County and the Districts got together and agreed the distribution of housing and employment land in Greater York. [18] Following the first alteration, when the Secretary of State approved the Greater York dimension, that matter was resolved amicably between the County and the Districts erm through the er Greater York study, so the issue therefore is there a need for more guidance for the structure plan, to break down the Greater York figure to individual Greater York districts, and our view quite clearly er is the answer that the answer to that is no. [19] Certainly it would be very difficult to introduce any statistical rational erm to the desegregation of Greater York to its district components, bearing in mind the small populations er in some of the Greater York er districts, we think that the general level of detail erm in the structure plan is appropriate, and we think to go down to any finer detail would be an inappropriate to a structure plan, and thirdly I think on that issue, er we would think that it would prejudice erm the work that District Council would want to do erm in their er local plans. [20] So those, Chairman, are the five points er that I wanted to raise on Greater York, and obviously we will be interested to hear the response round the table today. |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[21] Can I ask Mr can I ask Mr Davis to give us a bit more explanation, please, as to his rationale behind continuing resistance to the development of greenfield sites on the edge of York. |
| mr peter davis (PS3L4) |
[22] Peter Davis, North Yorkshire County Council, erm I think the clear answer to that is that districts, erm and county, erm were very aware of the greenbelt constraints on greenbelt sites |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[23] But |
| mr peter davis (PS3L4) |
[24] erm adjacent to the urban area. |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[25] Are you saying that greenfield development on the edge of York would be in the greenbelt as you have ... defined it in the deposited local plan. |
| mr peter davis (PS3L4) |
[26] I'm talking about the the overshoot, and my comments about greenfield sites were related to period eighty one to ninety two, and it became quite clear during the eighties that the sketch plan green belt or development was at that time, through the eighties, was by and large abutting onto the urban area, that er through the eighties what everybody understood to the sketch plan green belt was tight up against er the urban area, so in resisting urban greenfield sites erm on the urban edge through the eighties the County Council were recognizing the greenbelt constraints. |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[27] That isn't quite the question I asked. [28] Unless you are telling me that the sketch greenbelt local plan is the same as the deposited greenbelt local plan |
| mr peter davis (PS3L4) |
[29] Well |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[30] is there land between the current edge of development in York and the inner edge of the greenbelt which is as yet undeveloped? |
| mr peter davis (PS3L4) |
[31] Yes, and then that approach was taken on through the Greater York study, and in the greenbelt local plan, and the Greater York study identified a number of sites. [32] Part A goes ninety one to ninety six, part B ninety six to two thousand and six, sites adjacent to the urban area in the Greater York study er which were acceptable for development because corporately the districts and the county did not think that those sites discharged a greenbelt function as the greenbelt local plan was progressed those sites were excluded from the greenbelt erm and yes, we did identify a number of sites which did not conflict with greenbelt objectives erm on the urban edge. |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[33] Are those sites within the City of York administrative area or other districts? |
| mr peter davis (PS3L4) |
[34] The the bulk of them erm I think almost without exception are erm in adjoining districts, around York, the significant contribution from York that we identified in the Greater York study, erm largely comes from from windfill windfall sites, by and large. |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[35] Which districts, please. |
| mr peter davis (PS3L4) |
[36] Erm the the bulk of the erm erm commitment erm or the or the sites that we identified, er would be in would be in Ryedale district, in South Ryedale . |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[37] Thank you, thank you. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[38] Mr Curtis. |
| mr david curtis (PS3L6) |
[39] Thank you Chair. [40] David Curtis, York City Council. [41] I think some of my er introductory comments might now be [...] inspector, er understand the er sort of urban situation, erm we heard yesterday about er discussion about the similarities between different districts in North Yorkshire and the possible differences. [42] I think everyone around the table would accept that in this situation York is unique. [43] York's a historic city of some hundred and four thousand people, covering some two thousand nine hundred hectares, but that city itself is only part of the settlement that I think we would all regard as as York itself, that covers a larger population of some a hundred and thirty five thousand people, er contained er within the York outer ring road, and referenced to the the map submitted with my H One submission, and also the greenbelt plan which we've we've just put up on the board there, er will show you the the broader extent of the urban area. [44] Clearly in that situation the city of York is highly constrained, it's a modern industrial city with a very tight medieval core, a historic core which is is world renowned, but a historic core which actually only covers four percent of the built area of the city itself, when we look at that wider area erm the central historic core together with the eight other conservation areas in the city and conservation areas in the remainder of the urban settlement comes to some thirteen percent of the urban area. [45] Furthermore we have a series of major landscape features, er which are been referred to in the greenbelt local plan and elsewhere as wedges, which you'll see from the map enter into the very heart of the city itself. [46] Some six hundred hectares of that land is actually designated as greenbelt, but in addition within that a number of those areas are er prevented from development in perpetuity we'd argue because a large part of that area has got a historic status as stray land, which is a form of common land, which means it's actually not not available for any form of development, similarly the flood planes of the river Ouse in particular is for physical development reasons er prevented from development in many areas, and those of you who were here this weekend will have no noticed the reason why, it was a flooding that took that took place on the Ouse valley, in addition to those constraints, open space within the city is at a premium erm the city falls below the Emperface standard, erm by er something like erm half a hectare per thousand population, so compared with the Emperface standard of two point four per thousand, the city reaches a quite a generous erm categorization of the recreational space we have available, only a total of two hectares per thousand, therefore, and this is very relevant to the Greater York debate, erm, really the only land for development within the city is recycled land, there are limited number of er sites which have not been developed in recent years erm which can be identified for development, and are being identified for development in our draft local plan. [47] But the majority of of any development land in the city would be recycled, either from housing uses or industrial uses. [48] The draft of the city wide local plan will be going to the city council in December, and [...] prove of the consultation, but the figures some of you've seen in our evidence have been a agreed by the the local plan steering group, who sit in council members er across party, committee which has agreed the basic numbers, so the draft allocations which are in our submission, and which we have seen in the [...] schedules yesterday, are accepted as a basis for consultation by the city council but are clearly subject to review. [49] Turn turning then to just touch on the issues that I've, we didn't cover yesterday for York, erm you'll notice from our H One submission we have a slight difference of opinion with the County Council on the technical side of the er the calculation, we believe that the calculation, we believe that the calculation for York's need rather than three three should be a four thousand figure, taking into account the the issue of concealed households and involuntary sharing. [50] However, that doesn't have an effect on our er ability to agree a figure of three three for the city itself, in the structure plan, because the work we've done on the local plan taking into account commitments and suitable allowances for small sites, does indicate to us that a figure of three three is achievable, but would be extremely difficult to exceed, the difference here between the four thousand and the three three does, however, have an impact on our neighbours clearly, and as was mentioned yesterday the City Council does own some some twenty nine hectares of land outside its current boundary, er located in the Ryedale District Council area, that land, some of that land has planning consent, the remainder is allocated in the draft Southern Ryedale local plan and was excluded from the greenbelt, that land it is the City Council's intention to use to meet its er requirements for affordable housing, could accommodate some seven hundred dwellings, I think it is very important for me to emphasize that that is a very clear commitment of the City Council, and therefore that land in Ryedale would not er in the majority of its case be available for open market use, we would be seeking to use it to meet er affordable housing requirements. [51] Er the other point I would make about the the figures under H One, really is that erm the twelve thirty figures that you've seen in the tables is our best estimate at the present time, based on the site survey we've carried out. [52] That is a very comprehensive survey, erm I wouldn't envisage any additional sites being recommended by the City Council, er at the present time, although clearly some of the sites may be suggested by by a private developers and landowners during the consultation process. [53] It is quite possible clearly that that number could be reduced, during the consultation process on the on the local plan, I think that's an important point because of the issue of windfall that was mentioned by Mr Davis, and was raised yesterday, reference to historic trends in the city of York do show that erm we have exceeded structure plan targets by substantial amounts, I think the figure is is forty percent or or more, er the County Council could confirm that, slightly difficult calculation to do because I'm sure you'll be aware that to our eternal shame, the City Council has not to date adopted a formal local plan, with reference erm to your question on day one er as to whether or not we might calculate contribution of windfalls in the past, we have looked at the nineteen eighty seven residential land availability er study, which was agreed with the house builders, adjacent districts, and of course the County, and in the five year period of that study, by comparison with the sites that we agreed in the study, an additional four hundred and thirty dwellings came forward and were completed on sites that had not been identified in the study, now I'd I would say very clearly that that level of windfalls erm would not continue in the future and it could not be a reliable basis for erm looking at windfall contributions in the city in the future, clearly the supply of development land in the city is a is a finite resource, er given given the constraints that are current holding, and although some additional windfalls to the two hundred I'd suggested in my H One [...] may come forward, on the other hand I suspect some of the sites suggested in the draft local plan could fall out of the equation. [54] Just turning briefly to the issue of affordable housing, you'll see from my H One submissions the City Council has a target, er which is in the the York area housing strategy, which is currently with the D O E for its consideration, of something like a hundred and fifty dwellings a year, giving over the fifteen year period a two thousand two hundred target, how we will go about achieving that is primarily, where it's possible using land we already own, or is in ownership of housing associations, and taking into account the the seven dwellings outside the current city boundary, we believe in total they will contribute some fifteen hundred dwellings towards that two thousand two hundred target, this will leave clearly a significant shortfall, and it will therefore be necessary to to seek to negotiate, if I can use the terms of P B G 3 erm with house builders as sites come forward in in the local during the local plan period. [55] Turning now very briefly to the H One D the Greater York issue, clearly the comments I've made about the calculations for York have a knock on effect for our position on Greater York, the Greater York figures as I understand it from the County Council are based on a one hundred percent migration assumption, if the technical difference between us er we are right then we believe clearly the Greater York figure should be increased by an appropriate amount, and the we've suggested the increased cut should be seven hundred er relating to the city itself I can't calculate with any great accuracy what the figure for the surrounding parts of Greater York might be, but it would be we suspect only another one to two hundred more on top of that, therefore that underst explains the reason why the City Council suggests that the Greater York should be increased to the ten four figure from the nine seven. [56] The other concern in the City Council's evidence on H One er is this issue of distribution, I note Mr Davis's comments about the difficulties of subdividing the Greater York allocation between different districts, and I I do acknowledge the difficulty in relation to Harrogate, and particularly Hambledon which obviously has a very small proportion of Greater York, on the other hand both Ryedale and Selby do contain a substantial proportion of the Greater York population, er based on my calculations of their er proportion of the population of Greater York which admittedly is a somewhat crude way of of doing estimates, but in the absence of of any other projections that was really the only way to do it, my estimate is that the er compared with the nine seven target of County Council would take in the could potentially be seen to be taking a share of four thousand two hundred in Ryedale and seventeen hundred for Selby, if you base it on their existing population distribution on er part [...] outside the city, now I'm not saying necessarily that's how the way you would do it, but I I think it's an indication that the scale of development in those two districts is quite significant in Greater York, our concern is that the policy as it currently stands does not give any real guidance as to the way in which distribution of development outside the city, but in Greater York, erm can be er should be di divided up, and I think the problem really occurs from the introduction of the new settlement into H One, erm I don't want to stray into the H Two debate [...] Chair, but I think it's the fact that H One does include a figure for the new settlement, that the new settlement is not located within any particular district, but that all the district totals do include in effect a figure which is undetermined at this stage, that that would be absorbed by the new settlement, as I understand the policy at the moment, and I think that really does introduce a problem, erm because clearly all of the emerging districts wide local plans could be in conformity with the structure plan and not include the new settlement, I think it's er interesting to note that the the D O E's recently published a good practice guide, on development plans, did particularly highlight the situation in Greater York, as a problem, as a shortcoming of the existing plan, and if I can just quote it, it does say this, on page forty three, it would seem appropriate for broad locations of new development to be established by means of an alteration to the structure plan. [57] So we have suggested, erm, you will see in our evidence that policy H One should be amended and their are clearly a number of ways in which that amended amendment could take place, but we would particularly suggest that erm an indication should be given as to what the proportion of each district's allocation is assumed to be going to the new settlement, if the new settlement is is agreed under the H Two discussion, thank you. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[58] Thank you very much, Mr Curtis. [cough] [59] I mean effectively what you're saying is that York has got a capacity for about another three thousand three hundred dwellings? |
| mr david curtis (PS3L6) |
[60] Yes. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[61] Over a whole range of sites. [62] After |
| mr david curtis (PS3L6) |
[63] Yes. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[64] that you're really straining, almost to get a gallon into a pint pot, never mind a quart, aren't you? |
| mr david curtis (PS3L6) |
[65] David Curtis, York City Council. [66] Yes, that is correct, sir. |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[67] Does that include all land within the city boundary not included in the greenbelt? |
| Unknown speaker (HVJPSUNK) |
[68] [whispering] Yes. [] |
| mr david curtis (PS3L6) |
[69] David Curtis, York City Council. [70] Yes it does, the there is as you will see from the greenbelt plan,a apart from the issue of the fact that the the city boundary is in many areas er sort of hard up against further urban development so there's no space between the city and the parts in adjacent districts, the greenbelt boundary, as currently proposed by the County Council, erm which as you'll see from our evidence is not a boundary supported in its entirety by the City Council, means there is no further development land between the city boundary and the greenbelt. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[71] Thank you. |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[72] Thank you. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[73] I think I'll ask Mr Smith from Ryedale to ... tell us a little more about Ryedale's problems or efforts |
| mr ian smith (PS3L7) |
[74] Thank you. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[75] to cope with the pressures from York city itself, and the Greater York area. |
| mr ian smith (PS3L7) |
[76] Ian Smith, Ryedale District. [77] Erm Ryedale District, as can be seen from the table supplied by Greater York, has taken the largest proportion of the Greater York housing element over the past ten years, as regards the proposed level of future housing growth suggested for the Greater York area, the District Council supports the figure in the structure plan, the Greater York study identified a number of sites around the Greater York area which could accommodate further development without compromising greenbelt objectives or adversely affecting the character of the settlements surrounding York, and within that part of Southern Ryedale within the Greater York area the identified sites were, by and large, incorporated into the Southern Ryedale local plan, which has recently been through the public enquiry, the District Council does not believe that a larger amount of land could be identified within Southern Ryedale, without compromising greenbelt objectives. [78] As regards the distribution of lands between the districts, erm if I can refer to Mr Curtis's comments first, the Greater York study never anticipated that the distribution of housing around the Greater York the districts would be based around the percentage of population within those districts, but purely on capacity of sites within those districts to accommodate future housing growth without compromising greenbelt objectives, Ryedale, as I've said before, has taken the largest proportion of recent housing in the Greater York area, and has identified a substantial amount of new land for housing within its Southern Ryedale local plan, what the District Council is concerned about is that within the local, Southern Ryedale local plans, this is taking a large proportion of its district wide total plans, yet the District Council from the structure plan figure given is unable to calculate the remainder of housing that should be allocated in the remainder of its district. [79] What Ryedale is seeking is not a figure for its sector within the Greater York area, and the same with the other districts, but rather a figure for the Greater York area as a whole, and then a figure for the remainder of those parts of the districts outside the Greater York area, so you don't get a situation with my colleagues on the left where you are in the structure plan dictating the number of houses that should be allocated in, for example, two parishes. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[80] I follow the I follow the er the point, but the thing that puzzles me is that your South Ryedale local plan allocations have arisen out of the discussions on the Greater York study, yes? |
| mr ian smith (PS3L7) |
[81] That is correct, yes. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[82] Where do you go post two thousand and six, for example, in obtaining a strategic view about the distribution of growth around York, and in the Greater York area. [83] I mean, how is that going to be provided? [84] How are you going to be given, and I'm making an assumption, of course that the present two tier planning system is still prevailing? [85] Stick with that scenario, how, how would you anticipate, or how would you expect that strategic guidance to be given as to where development should be appropriately located to serve the needs of Greater York, what mechanism is there in place for being |
| mr ian smith (PS3L7) |
[86] I it's |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[87] given that guidance? |
| mr ian smith (PS3L7) |
[88] Ian Smith, Ryedale District Council. [89] Erm beyond two thousand and six, I would have thought the strategic guidance would be in locations other than peripheral expansion around the Greater York area, which I would have suggested would would more than likely be to new settlements. |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[90] Can I pursue [...] erm any fact no more without compromising greenbelt objectives, no more than that, er you said a couple of times. [91] I th I'm not challenging that, I simply wish to be clear what you mean by it. [92] Two questions. [93] Does that mean no more without development in the deposited greenbelt, as in the greenbelt as defined in the deposited greenbelt local plan, or does it mean no more unless it is hard up against that greenbelt? [94] And secondly, to which greenbelt objectives did you refer? |
| mr ian smith (PS3L7) |
[95] Ian Smith, Ryedale District Council. [96] Er to answer the first answer the first of your two questions, erm, the greenbelt as defined in the greenbelt local plan is hard up, in many respects, against the edge of the built up area, excluding allocated sites, allocations above that within the Southern Ryedale area would in fact require redrawing green in a green belt boundaries. |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[97] But there is allocated land, allocated undeveloped land, between the existing urban edge and the inner edge of the greenbelt? |
| mr ian smith (PS3L7) |
[98] Yes, where, sorry, Ian Smith, Ryedale District, yes, er where it was considered those allocated sites could be developed without extending development into the greenbelt. |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[99] Thank you. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[100] Mr Davis, and then Mr [...] . |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[101] I'm sorry there was a second question . |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[102] Oh sorry, yes. |
| mr ian smith (PS3L7) |
[103] Erm the greenbelt objectives which we identify with or could be compromised by significant peripheral expansion, or the expansion of a settlement within the greenbelt, were primarily the effecting the setting of the historic city, which we and the County considered and refer to more than just the green wedges, and but involve the whole countryside, and the setting of the settlements within the greenbelt around the Greater York area, expansion of lar large urban areas into the countryside, possible coalescence of settlements. |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[104] Not the historic city itself? |
| mr ian smith (PS3L7) |
[105] Yes er [...] it the first, yes, setting of the historic city [...] . |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[106] How would you describe the setting of the historic core of York. |
| mr ian smith (PS3L7) |
[107] Erm, it's a city, [...] this takes me back a few months, since the Southern Ryedale local plan enquiry, the character, special character of a city, is derives from a number of elements, there's the green wedges which centre on the strays which penetrate into the heart of the built up area, there is the encircling belt of open countryside which links those areas together, there are the numerous settlements within the greenbelt and their relationship to one another, and to the city of York. |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[108] There are a number of viewpoints of the city from the ring road |
| mr ian smith (PS3L7) |
[109] Yes. |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[110] erm, in some of which the Minster is clearly visible, |
| mr ian smith (PS3L7) |
[111] Mhm. |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[112] in a setting of suburban, industrial, residential development, and some of those viewpoints on the ring road all one can see is the suburban, industrial, and residential development. |
| mr ian smith (PS3L7) |
[113] Ian Smith,Ry |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[114] That's what were aiming to preserve, is it? |
| mr ian smith (PS3L7) |
[115] Well, Ian Smith Ryedale, I think in the majority of views across from the ring road you have a belt of open countryside before that suburban housing. [116] What you yo were trying to achieve is the expansion of the built up area towards the ring road, and thereby having built development hard up er as it is at the moment the ring road goes through for the most part open countryside on either side of it. |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[117] Yes. [118] Thank you. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[119] Mr Davis. |
| mr peter davis (PS3L4) |
[120] Very briefly, Peter Davis, North Yorkshire County Council, you raised the issue of procedures looking at the er post two thousand and six scenario within the light of er a statutory greenbelt er at that time, and I would envisage that the County Council and the Districts, if indeed we're all er in business at er er in in in the next century, would probably want to run a similar sort of exercise that they [...] would be ran through the end of the eighties, and that is to sit down together, er and look at all the options, er that are available for Greater York, in the same way that they did it in ninety eighty nine, one additional factor at that time would be that er the greenbelt would be statutory, and it would be statutory if the County Council and ninety five percent of the district support on sites would be a tight greenbelt so the options would be looked at erm er in that context, on the comments that er Miss Whittaker, erm questions that Miss Whittaker raised, there is a paper that the County Council produced for the greenbelt local plan enquiry that I remember well as N Y Two, which set out in detail the various components, erm of the York greenbelt in addition to the historic title that the that the focus of the green belt comes across a variety of of of of matters, and if it if it is helpful to this panel that document was acceptable by and large, supported by the District, we can certainly put that in, and can circulate it round. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[121] Yes, yes please, if you would. |
| mr peter davis (PS3L4) |
[122] Thank you, sir. [123] Mr Grigson. |
| mr steven grigson (PS3L8) |
[124] Steven Grigson from Barton Willmore. [125] Sir, I would want to come back I susp |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[126] Can you? |
| mr steven grigson (PS3L8) |
[127] I will want to come back, I suspect later on. [128] Am I on? [129] Thank you. [130] I want to make a limited point at this juncture, I reserve the right to come back later on, and it's become three points as a result of the discussion we've already had, my view on the contribution of the of the greenbelt to the York issue isn't just the setting of the city, it's the character of the city, and that would include the central city and the historic city, and the need to limit the physical expansion and size of the urban area because of the implications inside the historic city, and that would certainly apply to other cities with greenbelts that I'm familiar with like York, like er Oxford, which the character suffers from expansion, possibly excessive, Norwich, that considered a greenbelt, and London, if you like that didn't get its greenbelt until we had the character rather drastically altered, so I think it isn't just the setting and how you see the city from the ring road, it's actually what happens inside the core, the second point I want to make is really for clarification perhaps, er and it relates to the question of allocations between the built up area and the inner edge of the [...] greenbelt, as I understand it all those allocations are already er included in the Ryedale local plan, and are already therefore included in the commitments that we looked at in Ryedale, I don't think there is a further reserve of spare opportunities that might be used either before or after two thousand and six, that's certainly my understanding and if anybody was was taking a different view I think that should be clear, and now I come to the one point that I was actually going to raise, erm I think it's important that in this discussion of the relations between York city and Greater York, that we get a, early on, a clear view of what the requirements are in York, not just its capacity which we've discussed so far, and a figure of three thousand three hundred seems to be a fairly common currency, but its requirements, and I want to address a particular question to the County Council, which is in my proof, so they've had as it were four weeks notice of it. [tape change] |
| mr steven grigson (PS3L8) |
[131] And that is that in the projections of housing requirements for the City of York, not Greater York but the City of York, the County Council have a figure of four thousand four hundred households extra, but propose a provision of only three thousand three hundred dwellings extra, that's purely within York, and the question really therefore for the County Council is I had thought that their dwelling requirements, that their, sorry their their policy H One figure for York was what they thought the requirements were, but maybe it's what they think the limited capacity is, and they are foreseeing an overspill of thousand odd from the city of York into Greater York. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[132] Mr Spittle. |
| mr malcolm spittle (PS3L9) |
[133] Malcolm Spittle [...] the figures in policy H One are quite clearly referred to as provision that will be made in particular settlements, they are not stated as the the requirement for dwellings generated by that particular settlement, erm, that is quite clearly set out in policy H One, that is the wording of the policy. [134] If the city cannot provide mo , physically more than three thousand three hundred it would not be wise to include a figure of four thousand, five thousand, six thousand, dwellings within the city, that would be misleading and would not provide clear guidance to any local authority in the preparation of their local plan. |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[135] I don't think that was the point Mr Grigson was making. |
| mr malcolm spittle (PS3L9) |
[136] Well the |
| mr steven grigson (PS3L8) |
[137] [...] for clarity is that the actual projected requirements, as a series of projections produced by County Council are for four thousand three hundred households, and a projected requirement for three thousand three hundred dwellings, well quite clearly if the City of York itself cannot accommodate the requirement generated from in that city, then it must be looked at in relation to the whole of the Greater York area, and the projections of the Greater York area do take into account the er the figures generated from within the City of York, therefore, yes, they are included within the Greater York figure. |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[138] Do you accept, Mr Spittle, as Mr Grigson says, the projected on a tr on a trend statistical projection, the figure of households for York city is four thousand four hundred? |
| mr malcolm spittle (PS3L9) |
[139] The figure I think that we, yes I wonder if Mrs Long could re [...] to that particular question ? |
| Unknown speaker (HVJPSUNK) |
[140] Yes. |
| mrs long (PS3LA) |
[141] Mrs Long, North Yorkshire County Council. |
| Unknown speaker (HVJPSUNK) | [...] |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[142] Wait a minute, pull the microphone towards you. |
| mrs long (PS3LA) |
[143] Mrs Long, North Yorkshire County Council. [144] I did the demographic projections, erm, I think the difference that, er, Mr Grigson is talking about between dwellings and households comes about within the ability of the Chelmer model to input, erm, tt, calculated dwelling requirements. [145] Now I did it in one method and Mr Grigson did it in er in a second method, and the ability to do that changes the number of households that it would project to the er the dwellings, and cancels out, this makes judgements erm on the actual population projections based, which are estimates that have come out, I don't necessarily believe the best measured estimates have come out for York, and have adjusted some of the figures in accordance with that. [146] Now I'd like to emphasize this as because within York area it saw a difference between the census counts to the actual base population of a growth of five point seven two percent. [147] This is more than the change that inner London received, and I think it's quite unbelievable that York's population, base population is actually starting of from the figure of er a hundred and three, a hundred and four thousand, and I think York City Council will agree with that in any case, erm, the new major estimates for nineteen ninety two would already suggest that that population's declined by a further thousand, which I think emphasizes that these major estimates are estimates, and because of the differ the difficulties within the census for nineteen ninety one, with under enumeration, some problems may have occurred. [148] Erm, so I'll agree with Mr Grigson that we do suggest there are more households changing their own dwellings, but it's simply because we're trying to iron out of the problems that we feel have occurred within the major estimates. |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[149] What's your projection for the city? [150] In terms of additional households, ninety one, two thousand and six, please. |
| mrs long (PS3LA) |
[151] Erm, just one moment please ... four thousand two hundred. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[152] Four? |
| mrs long (PS3LA) |
[153] Four thousand two hundred. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[154] Thank you. |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[155] Mr Grigson, is that moving in the direction which you wished to get an answer to your question? |
| mr steven grigson (PS3L8) |
[156] Well it, it, it, it's moving a bit in that direction, I mean I knew what their prediction was cos they kindly supplied it to me, which is why I made the point, but I mean as as you know from our proof we have a higher view of the demographic requirements in York even than that, for reasons that were amply discussed in general on on day one, to do with vacant dwellings, mortality, and I think still probably a difference in migration between us on York, which is statistical rather than environmental, but I think it is important to to have that established early on that that even in the County Council's view, and with their, as it were, doubts about the statistics which they themselves use, that er there is more need generated in York, however much it is, than York itself can accommodate, and that is of course without York city's seven hundred addition for reducing concealed and sharing households which is not in the County Council's figures. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[157] Yes, er [cough] I see from the supplementary proof which you have put in the other day, I mean your calculations of York's requirements is six thousand six hundred. |
| mr steven grigson (PS3L8) |
[158] Yes. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[159] Yes. |
| mr steven grigson (PS3L8) |
[160] Yes. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[161] No doubt we will return to that. [162] Mr Donson. |
| mr roy donson (PS3LB) |
[163] Thank you. [164] Roy Donson, House Builders' Federation. [165] I'd like to take up some points as they've occurred this morning. [166] Erm, the first point relates to erm affordable housing targets in York, and the consequences that that has in relation not only to York but other areas, on the on the assumption that that there is, there has to be an overspill to to adjou adjacent areas. [167] Erm, I heard Mr Curtis say that the shortfall of affordable houses was seven hundred, he had a target of two thousand two hundred and felt they could find fifteen hundred somewhere already, so another shortfall of of seven hundred [cough] that actually contrasts with para' four one one of the one eleven should I say, four one eleven, of the York housing strategy, which has been submitted, and appendix four of the York evidence which actually says that, yes there's a two thousand two hundred target, but there would still be a shortfall of about one thousand one hundred dwellings if this land, they're talking about land that they own outside of York, is developed for affordable housing. [168] Well there seems to be a slight mismatch there, and perhaps some of this mismatch is also a part of, with the confusion I have of the various shifting policy of York, in term in terms of their requirement, there has been in the in the not too recent recent past York were saying they had an additional requirement beyond need which they termed their concealed requirement, although it might not be a concealed dwellings, as we might otherwise describe them, of one thousand six hundred, and that has progressively come down to seven hundred as presented at this enquiry. [169] Now it seemed to me that one thousand six hundred was [cough] initially as a result of survey work or shall we say investigation into the housing waiting list carried out by the York housing department, and I have to say that I have a certain respect for the York housing department, and they have a certain reasonable and good reputation within the region as a housing department, and so there seems to me that there is a gr a there is a potential to underestimate er the the affordable requirement that's been put to you, another point erm I'd just like perhaps to seek a little clarification from Mr Curtis, was was unfortunately I was looking something else up or my attention was diverted when he gave some figures for Ryedale and Selby, I think he said, and I'll happily stand corrected on this, that if you take away the York requirement figure from his ten thousand four hundred for Greater York, then the remainder he would apportion to Selby and Ryedale, so that Selby got four thousand two hundred, sorry, so that Ryedale got four thousand two hundred and Selby got one thousand seven hundred, erm that doesn't add up to ten thousand four hundred and I I I in total, and I I wondered where the rest was coming from, if I [...] the point correctly. |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[170] My note indicates that what Mr Curtis said was that on a pro rata to their existing |
| mr roy donson (PS3LB) |
[171] Yes. |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[172] population levels i in the area of Greater York, an allocation would suggest that, he wasn't advocating that, it was just a pro rata ball park estimate, and he didn't purport to make it add up to the residual requirement ... okay ? |
| mr roy donson (PS3LB) |
[173] It's it's still one thousand two hundred dwellings short, and I don't know where there going to go. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[174] Mr Curtis. |
| mr david curtis (PS3L6) |
[175] Thank you Chair. [176] David Curtis, York City Council. [177] There's a few issues I'd like to cover from a number of comments, I'll I'll |
| mr roy donson (PS3LB) | [...] |
| mr david curtis (PS3L6) |
[178] I'm sorry. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[179] You hadn't finished? |
| mr roy donson (PS3LB) |
[180] No I hadn't. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[181] Alright, |
| mr david curtis (PS3L6) | [...] |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[182] hold your horses then Mr Curtis. |
| mr roy donson (PS3LB) |
[183] [...] to two points |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[184] You can pick that |
| mr roy donson (PS3LB) | [...] |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[185] Do you want those picked up? [186] No? |
| mr roy donson (PS3LB) |
[187] Yes, my other points about Ryedale anyway. |
| mr david curtis (PS3L6) |
[188] Er yes Chair, first of all the the last point first as it were, the erm Senior Inspector is quite correct what I was doing was allocating the nine seven figure that the County had proposed in H One, er that's why it doesn't add up add up to ten four, clearly I haven't done the calculations for ten four, but on the basis that erm there are seven hundred extra dwellings going into Ryedale, I think Mr Donson can work that one out. [189] Erm in connection with erm with reference to the York area housing strategy, again, there is a simple explanation, in that that that document was prepared before the current work on the City of York draft local plan, had progressed to a stage at which members had considered housing sites, and a number of sites in City Council ownership erm within the city, covering some four hundred dwellings have now been agreed by the City Council members as coming forward over the planned period for affordable housing, and in the case of two of those sites it actually requires sites to be taken out of use as public car parks, to bring them forward for development, and that is why the eleven hundred figure is actually reduced now to to a seven hundred. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[190] Thank you. [191] Mr Donson, do you want to continue now? |
| mr roy donson (PS3LB) |
[192] Er yes, thank you very much. [193] Sorry, my my my other point is about about Ryedale, and and and its its and its its unde its relationship to Southern Ryedale, and erm Mr Smith said that erm as far as Ryedale Council are concerned they can't identify any more land within Southern Ryedale, well of course they would say that because was there position at the Southern Ryedale plan, but the fact of the matter is that there was a great dispute at the York greenbelt Southern Ryedale plan enquiry,revol resolving around the issue of what were the bits of the greenbelt which made up the historic character and thereby what were you left with that potentially could be developed, albeit it might be reserved as white land in the first place, but could potentially be developed, and a great deal of this land on the disputed side lay in Southern Ryedale, that in that in fact there was a view around the table not only sh not only shared by by the developers side, but erm that large parts of Osbaldwick and Huntingdon didn't fall within the definition of greenbelt as as set out by by the County Council in their N Y Two Two document, now that matter clearly has got to be something left to the Inspector and the Greenbelt Inquiry, but I think it's fair to point out that there is actually a difference of view, so it's not an absolute position, that you can't identify more land within within Southern Ryedale, and indeed, erm, not that I want to raise the Local Government Commission's head again, but of course the Local Government Commission is proposing that York be a unitary authority expanded, and once Yor , if York does become a unitary authority expanded then some of these areas will fall within their area, and they may have a different view than er the Ryedale current Ryedale district council does, and therefore I think it is a little unsafe to take just at pure se pure face value, that there is no more land within Southern Ryedale that could be developed. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[194] I think we live with the local authority set up as we have it. [195] Mr Smith, erm, obviously you want to respond to that, but at the same time could I just press you towards your view and it's really relevant to the districts surrounding York, that we know you can live with the figures of provision as set out by the County Council in the alteration, how ar are you aware of the figures which are being proposed by other participants in the discussion for Greater York? |
| mr ian smith (PS3L7) |
[196] Yes. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[197] You are? [198] Could you comment on whether you could live with an expanded requirement, er in South Ryedale? [199] And if you could, how would you see it being met? [200] I suspect you've already made that answered that that question. |
| mr ian smith (PS3L7) |
[201] Ian Smith, Ryedale District. [202] Erm yea,i I'll come back on that a couple of points, erm regarding Mr Donson erm and the Southern Ryedale and York greenbelt local plan inquiry. [203] The site that was identified or potentially identified by by the house builders in York was a site which both the County Council and the District Council considered performed a number of greenbelt functions, I think that it would be accepted that in any development plan land should only be allocated if there were some degree of certainty that it would come forward for development within the plan period, the site that was identified, there had been no objections made to the Southern Ryedale local plan so therefore there were no indications that it would have come forward for development within that plan period anyway, had it been identified, had it been allocated. [204] Erm regarding the question of erm additional sites for housing, I erm if I can turn to erm Barton Willmore's [...] G One Ten erm in paragraph ... |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[205] Can I, can I just pause you there? [206] Have you had a copy of, dare I say it, the tabulation which was produced by the panel, which summarized the various er submissions, and if I just read them to you. [207] The H B F figure for Greater York was twelve thousand three hundred, the Barton Willmore figure was twelve thousand seven hundred, but they did break it down on a district basis, and they gave five six five o to Ryedale, and then Michael Courcier, represented by Mr Sedgewick, a much more modest figure of ten thousand six hundred, for Greater York. |
| mr ian smith (PS3L7) |
[208] Ian Smith, Ryedale District. [209] Erm, as I've said before, I have reservations about whether a much increased figure about above the County Council's er proposal could be accommodated within Ryedale District Council, and I if the figure above that is proposed I would suggest that the extra is accommodated within the new settlement, which I presume the ar argue answer you would have expected from Ryedale, erm Barton Willmore's figure is based on an assumption that they believe that within Ryedale there is a capacity to increase past building rates, I would refute that, erm the building rates in Southern Ryedale I would suggest were abnormally high, because of the development of Clifton Moor airfield, the North Western part of the Southern Ryedale district, sorry South Western part. [210] The land there is now nearly exhausted, and I would suggest that building rates in future years are in fact likely to decrease from what were abnormally high figures in the in the past ten year period. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[211] Yep, er er yes. [212] L coming back to your other point I mean your saying you could not physically, or you would not wish to accommodate, let me put it that way, you would not wish to accommodate anything more than is now you're you're making provision for within the South Ryedale local plan |
| mr ian smith (PS3L7) |
[213] Ian Smith |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[214] can I just just pursue that you said said so the if you embarked on another scenario, and you said that the only way in which extra over, that beyond the figure proposed by the County Council, would be by way of a new settlement, I'm sort of transgressing my own ground rules here, I know that Ryedale has expressed support for the principle of a new settlement, are you saying that you would be looking for a new settlement, possibly in Ryedale? |
| mr ian smith (PS3L7) |
[215] Ian Smith, Ryedale District. [216] We would be looking for a new settlement in the best location around Greater York. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[217] I thought you'd say that. |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[218] Was that meaning yes or no? |
| mr ian smith (PS3L7) |
[219] Yes we support the principle, but the question about whether or not it should be in Ryedale district has not been erm answered by our members, and indeed it it we consider it should have wait, I mean this is answering something that'll be discussed at later within this issue, something that should not be er assessed until after the er |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[220] Well, let's put it on the shelf for the time being. [221] But I, we're going to have to discuss when we get to H Two just how you're going through the process of actually finding a site. [222] If, you know, finding a site for a new settlement is an acceptable way forward, but I, let's leave it on the shelf for now. [223] Mr Curtis. |
| mr david curtis (PS3L6) |
[224] Thank you, Chair. [225] Er David Curtis, York City Council. [226] I'd just like to comment on two or three issues that were raised earlier. [227] Clearly we do not wish to go through the same debate that we had at the greenbelt inquiry, erm but it is very relevant erm you'll see from our submissions to the panel that er quite clearly the City Council did not agree entirely with the proposed boundary of the greenbelt, the City Council did take the view that there were certain areas of land proposed to be included in the greenbelt er which did not fulfil a greenbelt function in the Council's view, and that was clearly was discussed at the greenbelt inquiry, it was not just one site, er we clearly were not not in our er responsibility to identify a specific site outside our district, but there were a number of areas er subject to those objections, not just from ourselves, but as Mr erm Donson has said er from various objectors. [228] The greenbelt boundary as I mentioned earlier as proposed by the County Council is very tightly drawn, excluding the sites which have been mentioned which our allocated, there is no land between the edge of the urban area and the proposed greenbelt boundary and that does seem to us, continues to seem to us er not an appropriate way forward. [229] In terms of the |
| mr peter davis (PS3L4) |
[230] I'm sorry David, I thought |
| mr david curtis (PS3L6) |
[231] In terms of the definition of er what is historic York I think again an issue we went over for some length of time at the greenbelt inquiry, I would draw your attention back to my earlier comments that York is basically a modern industrial city with a very precious historic core, that historic core er represents no more than actually five percent of the built up area, that something like eighty five percent of the city was built after eighteen hundred, the view that was expressed by the County in N Y Two, in terms of the definition of the greenbelt, the Greater York greenbelt and its purposes was not accepted by the City Council, we do not accept that all of the func elements of the York greenbelt contribute towards preserving the character of the historic city, we rely on the the fact that the two comments the Senior Inspector made at this, the the green wedges and historic core itself that establish the historic character of the city, there are many parts of the edge of York which could repli be replicated in many cities, historic or otherwise around the country ... and finally just coming back to the issue of scale of development erm the point I should have made earlier about the house builders figures for the city of York is that the house builders did suggest a figure of four thousand for the city, erm, I'm not aware on what basis that was made, but clearly my evidence would quite clearly indicate that I believe that could not be accommodated, certainly on any known sites within the cit current city boundary, thank you Chair. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[232] Mr Sedgewick, can I just ask Mr Sedgewick to [cough] . |
| Unknown speaker (HVJPSUNK) |
[233] Sedgewick, Michael Courcier, and partners. [234] As you know from our submission, sir,n we've taken a more modest requirement for the Greater York area, and that's based to some extent upon what we think is is achievable there, we're not saying that erm the figure should not be higher, we're not saying that the H B F figure for instance should nu not be er put in there, but what we're saying is if that higher figure does go in because of the clear constraints on the provision of additional land the the higher figure may well mean that there's a need for two new settlements ra rather than just one. [235] The approach we've taken which is set set out in our our submission in section seven, we've we believe that maybe some nine hundred additional sites could be found, this is in addition to the existing allocations, er some nine hundred additional sites could be found within Greater York, by making changes to the boundary of the greenbelt, we you do it the greenbelt is too extensive in some parts, it can be rolled back without affecting the the purpose, erm Mr Donson's already already identified those areas, if that's the case, on our figures a settlement of fourteen hundred plus nine hundred on other sites is is is quite achievable. [236] In the longer term, if there i is a need for a for addi additional supply that can be be done by increasing the size of the segment or or using some of this additional land. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[237] Thank you. [238] Thank you. [239] Mr Davis. |
| mr peter davis (PS3L4) |
[240] This is very brief and solely for the record, Chairman, at the York greenbelt local plan inquiry the City Council made one objection, and one objection only, in respect of sites, and that was a site that straddled the York Selby boundary, that was there only expressed concern on sites specific objection, one site in the entire plan. [241] That's a matter of record. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[242] Thank you. [243] [cough] Well I think, probably ought to make it clear of course that we won't have available to us the greenbelt local plan enquiry, so |
| Unknown speaker (HVJPSUNK) | [...] |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[244] Well certainly not in the period during which we're going to be discussing the various submissions, er un un at the E I P, now Mr Heselton, erm in a way your comments yesterday would probably be taken that Selby could cope, or would be prepared to cope, even with additional development, now you better sa tell me whether that's true or false, and I'm thinking particularly of that element of Greater Sel , of Selby which is in Greater York. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[245] Er, yes that's that's true to a degree, Chairman. [246] Er Terry Heselton, Selby District. [247] Erm well in in the context of what I did say yesterday it'll come as no great surprise to anyone that like Ryedale we also accept the North Yorkshire County County figures, erm which in short we we find are based on reasonable assumptions and and and an appropriate methodology, compared to some of the more extreme interpretations and projections that have that have been put forward, if I can illustrate that point by reference to er potential building rates, that the highest figure that's been suggested is the one put forward by Mr Grigson, of Barton Willmore, I'm talking for the moment about Greater York generally, and I'll come onto the Selby aspect in a minute. [248] That's a suggested figure of twelve thousand seven hundred, which imply a building rate of eight hundred and forty six a year, in comparison with the adopted re er rate in the in the adopted plan of six o six and an actual building rate of seven o one, er [cough] my re calculation shows that that would be a thirty nine percent increase, over the adopted plan rate, and a twenty one percent increase over the actual rate. [249] In comparison the er the the smallest projection put forward by Mr Thomas, would actually result in a twenty one percent decrease in building rates over that approved in the adopted adopted plan, and a thirty two percent increase over the actual rate experienced since nineteen eighty one. [250] So I don't find either of those those two alternatives acc acceptable largely on the basis of of the arguments put put forward yesterday. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[251] Mhm, yes. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[252] So coming back more specifically to Selby, and taking er Mr Curtis's ball-park figure of of seventeen hundred, erm now already we've we've got approximately eight hundred and fifty committed in terms of a hundred and eighty con er completions, five hundred and sixty permissions including conversions, and a hundred and ten dwellings identified on a site at Elvington in in the Greater York study, and there's really not a great deal more flexibility, erm, because of the greenbelt constraint. [253] We fully support and endorse the deposit greenbelt boundaries, then I think it's inescapable that at at some point that is going to lead us to leapfrogging over the greenbelt boundary, at some stage during the the the plan period, there may well be sufficient erm commitment and identified sites to to mop up in in the short term, but by the end of of the plan period it's it's my belief that there will be a need to address this issue by bringing forward proposals for a new settlement, er which obviously Selby district er full fully supports. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[254] And you would see that as an inevitable er way forward if you want to meet the housing provision in strategic terms in Greater York. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[255] That's that's right, I mean I I I would suggest that we've arrived at that point now, and we're increasingly likely to do so, because as we've already heard York is very constrained, it's it's it's a relatively small, compact, historic city, the greenbelt boundaries are drawn fairly tightly, correctly in so in in my opinion, and there's really not much room for manoeuvre within with er in a existing settlements within the greenbelt. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[256] Thank you. [257] Mr Donson. |
| mr roy donson (PS3LB) |
[258] Er Roy Donson, House Builders' Federation. [259] I just wanted to take up the point that's been raised again, and it keeps popping its its little head up from time to time, this issue of building rates. [260] I would say to you that the history of North Yorkshire County is that the house house builders have built, more or less the building rate of planning policy, whatever that has been, and that is a matter of fact, and if and if and if we are in a situation where the market is being fettered, as is the policy, and it's not a policy which we are seeking to go away from specifically, and it is inevitable that the [cough] house builders will build to whatever the policy building rate is, and comparisons of one building rate with another are simply telling you what's happened in the past, not what needs to happen in the future er in terms of meeting the housing requirement, and quite clearly in any area where you are introducing a new settlement, if indeed that's the conclusion we come to, er late later on, erm and I hope we do, but if we are introducing a new settlement you are bound to skew the building rates, and the more and more you reduce the area in which you consider what the building rate effect is the more and more that it actually gets skewed, er and erm you know, quite frankly, when the developers built a new estate at the end of my particular street the building rate went up alarmingly in my area, er and er you know, we can go on forever like that, I just think it's very misleading to just deal with the judgement of building rates. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[261] Mr Thomas. |
| mr peter davis (PS3L4) |
[262] Thank you. [263] I had thought that builders built houses when they thought they thought they could sell them, I didn't realize it was part of some altruistic policy of complying with planning policy, still we learn everything every day, don't we? [264] Erm, sir, I want to address the point, if it's the right time about the level of housing provision the Greater York area in particular, erm that we've seen round the table here that we have special circumstances applying to York, and to its surrounding area. [265] Erm I won't dwell on York city centre and its historic core because you're all clearly aware of that, but it its setting was accepted at the greenbelt enquiry as being sufficiently important to warrant protection wider than just its physical, existing physical limits, erm the special protection was accorded also to the the special character rather was accorded also to the surrounding countryside, much of which is very attractive, and many of the typical Yorkshire small villages and hamlets that surround the area as well, er and we're clearly in a position in Greater York which is different from the position that arises in many other counties and many other districts within this county, we're in a position of grave shortage of suitable, developable land, we're in a position of high quality er character, and landscape, we're in a position where York, in particular , has extremely good transportation links, to the Leeds Bradford conurbation, where we discuss at length over the last two days there are policies for urban regeneration, subject to regional planning guidance in that area erm and we're in a position where quite clearly York is under pressure, a great deal of pressure from migrants, er because it's a it's an attractive location to live. [266] When you put all these factors together it concerns me that nobody has been advancing the case that as with other districts, some other districts in York, it would be appropriate, even more appropriate in my view, that the migration assumption should be discounted, there are in my view special reasons why this should be the case, special reasons over and above tho those that have been applied, to the other districts, this in my view would be that the Greater York housing provision for all those reasons I've just highlighted, should be reduced, should be reduced to the seventy five percent level, in other words that would be reducing it by between a thousand and twelve hundred and fifty houses, now I won't get on to the reason that the fact that that's one reason why there's no need for a new settlement, erm but it is a reason in its own right just to protect the character and the capacity requirements and the environmental sensitivities of the Greater York area. [267] A second factor which I'd like to raise, and please stop me, sir, if I'm not playing your ground rules here, is to get back to the original point made by Mr Davis, as to how this figure is going to be split between the districts, I think it's absolutely essential that this figure is split between the districts, and it may well be, if you decide, sir, to recommend in favour of the new settlement that you may have to leave that as a floating figure to go around the districts, at the moment it is not. [268] I would like to have more information from the County, or anyone else from the table for that matter, how this figure's going to be split, clearly P P G requires it to be split between district, and I'd like to see it split on that basis. [269] Thank you, sir. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[270] Thank you, Mr Thomas. [271] Erm I I get the impression from what you're saying is that there is a distinct strategic view which should be taken about York and its role, which in a way would tend to limit the amount of housing development you should be putting in and around York. |
| mr peter davis (PS3L4) |
[272] Indeed, er and |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[273] And that's the way the authorities should be moving forward with their planning for the county. |
| mr peter davis (PS3L4) |
[274] I think that is the case, doubly so considering the discussion yesterday where we saw, that whether some of the districts liked it or not there is going to be development in excess of the projected figures in their relevant districts over the plan period. [275] There is slack elsewhere to effect a redistribution to the benefit of York and its Greater York area. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[276] Probably an el well certainly an element which ought to be considered within the umbrella of the R P G but lets |
| mr peter davis (PS3L4) |
[277] Indeed. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[278] wait and see what comes out of that. [279] Er I'm glad you raised the point about the distribution between the districts, and apart from your comment er I know Mr Davis is opposed to the idea, I haven't discerned a view either way from anyone else, whether they would like them or would not like them. |
| mr peter davis (PS3L4) |
[280] Well it seems to me, sir, that er the new settlement is becoming a bit of a dustbin which people are throwing their unspent allocations in, and then passing it around from district to district |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[281] Mhm. |
| mr peter davis (PS3L4) |
[282] and Selby are the people who are prepared to take it |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[283] I have |
| mr peter davis (PS3L4) |
[284] it maybe it maybe, sir, you should allocate all the housing to Selby, and we can all go home. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[285] I'm I'm about to apologize to Mr Grigson, because I see from his submission he actually did distribute it by district within the er Greater York area, er [cough] yea, planning by Selby is not I think the right approach, but. [286] Mr Cunnane, sorry, Mr Grigson, you want to come in? |
| mr steven grigson (PS3L8) |
[287] Well i I'm happy, I mean I was just going to make that point, sir, but I do have other points, but I'll wait . |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[288] Can we have Mr Cunnane, then Mr Sedgewick, and then we will have a coffee break. |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[289] Chairman. [290] Joe Cunnane. [291] My point is a very short one, I I simply need to put it on the record that it is erm our position that the panel should distribute the er ove York overspill, if I can call it that, as well, that the panel should address the issue of distribution, because our fear is th is th is is is the Selby problem, that Selby are embarked upon a clear strategy of er substantial growth, and we do not want to see er the Greater York overspill being unduly er dir funnelled channelled in that direction. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[292] Thank you. [293] Mr Sedgewick. |
| Unknown speaker (HVJPSUNK) |
[294] Sedgewick, Michael Courcier and partners. [295] Our position in in the submission was that if there is not the the need to distribute York's own population around Greater York, then the argument for a separate Greater York figure disappears. [296] The the original purpose was to to deal with problems arising within the city of York. [297] If you feel from the discussion around the table that the u requirements of York have not been properly reflected in the the published H One figure er and that there is a need to distribute that population, and therefore there is going to be a Greater York figure. [298] The overlap with the districts needs to be eradicated, it's a black hole at the moment, every district can pass a its surplus on to another district, and indeed it would be the last district to prepare a district wide local plan that has to meet the residue of the Greater York requirement, it may maybe a good stimulus for the districts to get on with their local plans, but that's not an [...] planning way. [299] What we would advocate, as indeed Mr Smith did earlier, is that there should be a a global figure for Greater York, and a reduction, in an appropriate reduction in the requirement for each district, and I believe that anticipating you might ask me what that is what that reduction should be, erm I I can say it must be related to the ca capacity, of that district within Greater York. [tape change] |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[300] That proposition presupposes that if you make a reduction in the district figures, then you must have an idea what the district contribution towards the Greater York figure is, er and I find it difficult to see that you can have, if you have a new settlement, if you have a new settlement the C provision for the new settlement floating in this table, erm but can I just say before we adjourn for coffee, that I really would like to have some very firm answers to the questions which are posed under issue two, er and particularly about two D and that is specific guidance on the location of the new settlement. [301] Assuming you end up with a new settlement. [302] Can we break for coffee? |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[303] Yes. [break in recording] |
| Unknown speaker (HVJPSUNK) |
[304] Sir announced the the end of debate one, I certainly wasn't under the impression that it had finished. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[305] Well, I've got, if you you just bear with me a moment, I still have one foot dragging in H one, but I thought we'd got to the stage where in order to try and clarify thinking on the matter we ought to progress onto H two, erm, that just let me reveal the thinking, erm that, before I do that can I just say in terms of mechanics those of you who have just joined us for the first time, could you turn your name boards round so I can see them, thank you, and when you want to come in the normal practice is to put your name board on end, so it will attract our attention. [306] But just let me come back to the the point I want to make, it is it evident to us from what was said yesterday collectively by the District Councils, that they could live with the figure of forty one thousand two hundred, as proposed by the County Council, without a new settlement. [307] There's a corollary to th that was is our impression, from the various views that were sp s spelt out around the table. [308] You'll have a chance to come back on whether we have got the wrong impression on that, I mean I recall Mr Heselton's quite clearly, but let me pursue that at a stage further if if we take that as our impression of what you have said collectively, and you are asked to make provision for nine thousand seven hundred dwellings, again collectively in the Greater York area, and I'm addressing this question to the districts, what provision would you make in your districts of your district figure in the Greater York area? [309] ... Mr Davis, you want to make a comment? |
| mr peter davis (PS3L4) |
[310] Well I was I've looked, Peter Davis, North Yorkshire, I've just glanced down the table at certainly at the er my Greater York district colleagues, and er certainly we er are rather surprised that er you have the impression that you have the impression that er erm we could do without the erm the new settlement, quite clearly erm erm certainly Harrogate, Selby, er and Ryedale, and the County Council, believe the the new settlement is absolutely essential, erm and I think that's erm erm certainly a matter of agreement between er us and those three districts, it's absolutely essential. |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[311] I think the point, I think the point we're making is that none of the districts yesterday told us that to meet their figure in H one they would need to have a new settlement, for example, I well remember Selby saying to us if we go above our H one figure we would need a new settlement, but they did not say to meet our H one figure we would need a new settlement. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[312] Mr Heselton. |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[313] It's in that |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[314] Sorry. |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[315] context that we are ask now want to get clarification from the District Councils as to what proportion of there H one figure would be in the Greater York area. |
| Unknown speaker (HVJPSUNK) |
[316] Er may may I reply, please? |
| Unknown speaker (HVJPSUNK) |
[317] Mr Heselton first, yes. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[318] Thank you. [319] Terry Heselton, Selby District. [320] Er it yes it it's true to tell, gone on record on several occasions saying in terms of environmental capacity [...] there's the potential within Selby district to accommodate eleven and a half thousand dwellings, however I did later qualify those comments with reference to the emerging local plan, which is the main vehicle we've we've got for identifying potential development sites and the the qualification was that was that land is not necessarily available in in the right places, to enable us to make a a reasonable distribution for development in accordance with P P G advice, so that the question of a new settlement remains an extremely attractive option for Selby District, and as I mentioned this morning, in terms of whi we would be approximately eight hundred and fifty dwelli whi we would be approximately eight hundred and fifty dwellings short, in any case, erm |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[321] How much are you saying would be in the Greater York area in your district? |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[322] Well I haven't suggested a a figure, I made reference [...] and I also referred to the fact that when you then discounted completions, identified sites, and existing measurements, you would be approximately eight hundred and fifty dwellings short. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[323] Short of Mr short of Mr Curtis's figure ? |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[324] If if if I be yes, Mr Curtis's ball-park figure. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[325] Mhm, so we'll we'll credit you with minus eight fifty, shall we? [326] This probably being the best [...] |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[327] Er as as a basic starting point yes. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[328] Yes. [329] Mr Allanby. |
| mr david curtis (PS3L6) |
[330] Er David Allanby, Harrogate Borough Council. [331] Erm first of all Chairman I would confirm that it is our view that with a provision of six thousand five hundred for Harrogate district, we don't think we'd be looking at a new settlement to serve our needs, erm, having said that, we support the Greater York strategy, and we we certainly the level of provision erm for Greater York as proposed by the County Council, er but leaving aside for one moment the issue of a new settlement, it is our view that we'll be able to accommodate the level of growth that I think is anticipated in our district, erm, within the figures, and I'm referring specifically to N Y one, and the table on the last page where there's an indication there of the sort of of er housing numbers that would would have to be accommodated within Harrogate district, and and our part of Greater York is essentially a rural character consisting of a a number of small villages, so there there we have er a total figure of two hundred dwellings to be provided within our part of Greater York, that basically represents erm existing commitments and a a yield from small sites in the future, perhaps conversions, and we'r we're quite happy with that. [332] I think our view is that if that provision was to be any greater, then we would have significant difficulty in accommodating that provision within our part of Greater York, primarily for for greenbelt considerations, not reasons, erm any additional provision would require a rolling back of the greenbelt, er significant provision would have two implications, erm either it would mean peripheral expansion er of York into the greenbelt around York and into our district, we feel that would adversely affect the special character of York, lead to outward sprawl of the York urban area, encroachment into open countryside, and coalescence of the urban area with the villages in our district, er and we we wouldn't want to support that. [333] The other option would be expanding the villages themselves, and we find that that would be equally harmful, so we'd be opposed to any significant additional development in our district over and above that that's that's been assumed in that table. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[334] Mhm. [335] If I if m I summarize that, I know Harrogate have supported the principle of a new settlement within the Greater York figure, but you hadn't anticipated that it would bite on your district, if I can use that word. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[336] We er haven't er certainly been through or down the road of looking at whether there are sites within our district that that could accommodate that, that exercise is still to be done. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[337] But if I put it another way, you could meet your anticipated contribution to the Greater York figure as spelt out in the structure plan? |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[338] That's right, sir. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[339] Ninety seven hundred. [340] Thank you. [341] Mr Jewitt. |
| mr ian smith (PS3L7) |
[342] Michael Jewitt, Hambledon District. [343] Michael Jewitt, Hambledon District Council. [344] Erm, before we leave item one D, sir, there are two things that Hambledon would like to say both on the q questions that the Chairman asked, capacity, and also on the principal of breaking down the Greater York figure i into the constituent districts, erm, the first point, on capacity, erm, we feel that we have a very limited capacity, er to accommodate development needs advising in Greater York, you'll see from our statement that we have just two settlements an , sorry three settlements in two parishes er within the defined Greater York area, Shipton, Beningborough, and Overton. [345] Two of these settlements have just ten and eleven dwellings respectively, erm Shipton is the only settlement of any consequence erm being two hundred and er twenty dwellings. [346] Now, within that overall context it it really would be meaningless to identify a contribution for Hambledon in terms of Greater York, as this erm figures are so are so small. [347] The second point being that erm if a figure was to be identified for Greater York, we'd feel that this would er unduly interfere with our duties and responsibilities as a District Council to allocate land in our district, cos in effect what it would do is direct us to making a housing allocation in one particular settlement, Shipton, we feel that's our responsibility not the County Council. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[348] Mhm. [349] Mhm. [...] |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[350] Isn't |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[351] Go on, go on. |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[352] Isn't there an argument, and perhaps I am st getting now onto two, matter two, that says from Hambledon's point of view, what has just been said is compelling, is a compelling argument in favour of identifying where the new settlement should go, because that will, at the same time, identify where it should not go? |
| mr ian smith (PS3L7) |
[353] Ah erm well, Chairman, I I think that this is something that's going to cut, as far as Hambledon's got concerns, is going to come up in the erm in the next debate, certainly, erm, the erm, the issue of erm whether policy should be expressed in terms of principle and criteria, or erm area and a district as being a dilemma erm to Hambledon, erm, it feels it's erm erm not being able to support the policy as defined, because ultimately the Council would object to a new settlement in Hambledon. [354] Erm, and therefore it feels it would be disingenuous of it to support the principle at this stage, it may well lead to a situation where were encouraging the County to go down a particular route, but only to get to the very end of it for us to pull the rug from beneath the County's feet. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[355] Mm. [356] Yes, erm we are aware of the the view that the District Council have expressed, about the new settlement, that's perfectly clear. [357] But if I just turn your attention to the figures that are postulated in the County Council's N Y one, the tabulation in paragraph twenty on the last page, it's attributed forty dwellings due in Hambledon, more or less. |
| mr ian smith (PS3L7) |
[358] My understanding of the situation in Hambledon is that there are, we're talking only small figures I realize, there are twenty commitments currently, within that area, erm clearly there are going to be some unidentified sites come forward erm, I don't wish to er [...] critical of that figure, I would accept the figure. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[359] Sorry? |
| mr ian smith (PS3L7) |
[360] I would accept that figure and |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[361] Thank you. [362] Yes. [363] Mr Smith, Ryedale. |
| mr ian smith (PS3L7) |
[364] Chairman. [365] Ian Smith Ryedale District. [366] I've already said this morning that the District Council does not consider that it can accommodate any further dwellings within the Southern Ryedale area without adversely affecting the character of the settlements that are already there, or compromising [...] greenbelt objectives, erm, so therefore to meet the Greater York total, the District Council considers it essential that there is a new settlement to take that amount of housing that cannot be accommodated within the Southern Ryedale area. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[367] What figure can you accommodate in South Ryedale? |
| mr ian smith (PS3L7) |
[368] Part of. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[369] Sorry, in Rye in the Ryedale part of the Greater York. |
| mr ian smith (PS3L7) |
[370] If you look at table, at the County Council's M |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[371] Yes. |
| mr ian smith (PS3L7) |
[372] Y one, erm |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[373] Is that the one you can live with? |
| mr ian smith (PS3L7) |
[374] We could live with that figure, and indeed our local plan is based on on that sort of a figure, being accommodated within that area. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[375] And the York figure we take as three thousand three hundred, Mr Curtis. |
| mr david curtis (PS3L6) |
[376] Dave Curtis, York City Council. [377] Yes, sir. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[378] And ou and going back to Mr Heselton, he has said i , I've got a negative factor for him at the moment in terms of minus eight fifty, but let let me let me take the figure which is actually quoted in the County Council's table of nine fifty dwellings. [379] Is it nine fifty, or is it something slightly higher, or something less? |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[380] Er, Terry Heselton, Selby District. [381] Erm, I believe the figure of nine fifty also includes a an allowance for windfalls windfalls. |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[382] Mr Heselton, I understood you said when we started this debate that you were eight hundred and fifty short, or thereabouts, of Mr Curtis's pro-rata figure, which was four thousand two hundred. [383] Did I misunderstand ? |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[384] No, er Mr Curtis's er hypothetical figure |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[385] Yes. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[386] of seventeen hundred. [387] Mm. |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[388] I beg your pardon? |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[389] Yes. [390] Which takes you back to nine fifty. [391] Sorry, eight fifty. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[392] Eight fifty, more |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[393] Yes. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[394] or less. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[395] Yes. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[396] Hypothetical. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[397] So in progressing through there, and I'm sorry we haven't done it this way, we end up in terms of the County Council figure of nine seven hundred for Greater York, possible er provision from, collectively from the districts of about fourteen hundred, fifteen hundred short. [398] Is my arithmetic correct? |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[399] Yes. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[400] Thank you. [401] Mr Grantham. |
| mr steven grigson (PS3L8) |
[402] Erm |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[403] And then Mr Thompson. |
| mr steven grigson (PS3L8) |
[404] Er I just want wanted to to pick up on your your opening remarks, sir, after coffee, that that the impression you had was that the the the districts, erm, could live with a that the County Council figures. [405] Erm with without a new settlement erm that that was indeed the the impression that erm I was left with as well, and what what we've sought to do in in the evidence that we've we've put before you is to take the nine seven, nine thousand seven hundred figure in Greater York, and and er s based on the data supplied by the County Council to to demonstrate that that actually when one looks at outstanding commitments erm with planning permission, identified the sites er without planning permission, those those that are allocated in local plans, making suitable allowances for small sites erm windfall sites and conversion, erm the the residual figure that is left in Greater York, which I calculate to be eight thousand six hundred and thirty seven, once one has taken away completions, which I think is an agreed figure between nineteen ninety one and nineteen ninety three of one thousand and sixty three, that erm, those existing commitments, and the sites likely to come forward,ma virtually match the figure for the outstanding housing requirement, so so one is left with a view that erm from from the data that's put in front of us that there isn't a residue of that size to to accommodate, although I accept that there may well be a residue of some sort, erm and it seems to me that the established Greater York erm framework, er is is the process by which that is distributed around the counties along the lines that the discussion's proceeded this morning. |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[406] In that context I think it would be helpful to us erm if we could have submitted to us a version of the table originally submitted by the H B F relating to commitments. [407] Relating solely to the Greater York area. [408] If you remember at the end of yesterday, Mr Donson will no doubt correct me if I'm wrong, he fige finished up, we started the day with a total guaranteed minimum of about thirty three and a half thousand, we got that up by arithmetic to thirty four point nine thousand, and I think we finished up at around thirty six thousand at the end of the day. [409] I think it would be very helpful to the panel to know what proportion of that thirty six thousand is within the district, within the Greater York area, don't ask for that to be done now, because it may well involve some difficult arithmetic, perhaps it's tonight's homework. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[410] Is that possible Mr Donson? |
| Unknown speaker (HVJPSUNK) | [laugh] |
| mr roy donson (PS3LB) |
[411] Roy Donson, House Builders' Federation, it's not possible by me, no, but |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[412] Right. |
| mr roy donson (PS3LB) |
[413] I'll I'll leave it to the [...] |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[414] Your sources your sources of supply are on the other side of the room. |
| mr roy donson (PS3LB) |
[415] Indeed they are, yes. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[416] Thank you. [417] Mr Thomas. |
| mr peter davis (PS3L4) |
[418] Yes, thank you, sir. [419] I think that the districts there possibly given the exception of Selby have taken a rather cautious approach as to what they anticipate being built in their areas within the Greater York area itself er over the next thirteen years. [420] Er a similar cautious approach which none of them took yesterday when on examination it was found that there was more potential there than before, erm so to help with the figures I have found very helpful erm appendix eight to the er York City Council erm statement, I think it appears in both of their statements [paper rustling] ... appendix eight Greater York housing provision [rustling of papers] ... sorry, could could I also direct you at the same time to the County Council's N Y five appendix three [rustling of papers] ... now the, the two make interesting comparisons because they both start of with the same H one proposal of nine thousand seven hundred dwellings, and I'll remind you there, sir, that only five thousand seven hundred of those are required by the existing population, four thousand of those are for migrants, and the two schedules go of in slightly different directions under the heading of completions, and the reason for that, sir, is that the the Greater York, the er County Council's figures, as you can see were computed in October nineteen ninety two when only seven hundred dwellings had been completed, yet six months later, under item C for the Greater York er housing provision figure, York Ci York City Council figures, the completions were one thousand and sixty three. [421] Erm, I'll not go through the whole of this table sir, but I do want you to look at the next column, outstanding planning permissions. [422] In October nineteen ninety two the outstanding planning permissions were three thousand three hundred and fifty, in April nineteen ninety three, there were three thousand four hundred and seventy three. [423] In fact sir, the County Council's figures produced in another appendix, can't lay my hands on it at the moment, had put this figure in as three thousand six hundred and fifty, but the nub of those two things are, that over that six month period, we're not only seeing more houses built but we have more consented, and that hasn't affected the residue that appears in the rest of these schedules. [424] Now the County Councils and the City Council's assessment of the capacity of the Greater York study sites are roughly the same, you can see, sir, that as things have moved forward in only a six month period, the City Council calculate there's a residual requirement of nine hundred and forty seven dwellings, only twenty five percent of the migration assumption, none hundred and forty seven dwellings left, compared to the County Council's outdated information which suggested it's one thousand three hundred and thirty five. [425] Both of those figures, sir, exclude any windfalls whatsoever over the next thirteen years, now if that is a justification for a new settlement, I'm a disbeliever. [426] It clearly is not the case, that, we have heard from the city this morning, and in the city alone windfalls have been progressing at the rate of eighty per annum, if it was only half that rate over the next thirteen years we would see five hundred more houses, and that excludes windfalls from the rest of the Greater York area, excluding the city of York. [427] It is quite clear, sir, that on the existing allocations, thirteen years to go, that the figure of nine thousand seven hundred dwellings, if you want to stick by that figure, my view it should be lower because it has too much an assumption for migration in a constrained area, if you want to stick by that figure, the nine thousand seven hundred will be reached without a new settlement, of that I have no doubt whatsoever. [428] Now, a new settlement option is a last ditch option, we're far from being the last ditch here, we're hardly the first ditch. [429] Thank you. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[430] Thank you. [431] Mr Grigson. |
| mr steven grigson (PS3L8) |
[432] Thank you, sir. [433] Steven Grigson, Barton Willmore. [434] I will want to come back on the same point that's just been made, but if before I get to that there are some other points that I think I should make in explanation of the lead we have given, if I may call it that, in putting forward the distribution of the Greater York total. [435] I think it's necessary to to set the scene for that to say that in fact as between the County Council and Barton Willmore there's very little difference in what we see are the requirements for the ring around the city, we both have a figure of of six thousand and something quite small. [436] The difference between our figures for Greater York and the County Council's figures for Greater York arise almost entirely within York City, and bi I think been established earlier this morning that some overspill, albeit the size maybe in dispute, is necessary from the city into the ring. [437] Erm I think it's also now pretty much common ground that the capacity of York city is around three thousand three hundred, but I think in in in taking an view on that, and in taking any view o on future windfalls, it is necessary for the panel to keep in mind that historically in the nineteen eighties windfalls were coming through at a time when it was not a adopted local plan for the city of York, so to some extent anything by definition of a substantial size was likely to be a windfall, erm, but also more to the point than that definitional point, I would expect to see, and I think what Mr Curtis has said earlier on that the local plan is likely to tighten up on criteria for release of sites, both small and large, he referred to the shortage of open space, and I would expect to see a policy change in short, a policy climate change, within the city of York that would constrain past historical rates of windfall release. [438] So that I think the situation affecting the Greater York area is that there wis there is a requirement to accommodate within the ring part of the needs of the city, and on our best estimate that er I apologize for the word overspill, but it it is descriptive, is of the order of three thousand three hundred dwellings to be accommodated in the ring which after the needs of York. [439] I don't intend to discuss the [...] housing, whether seven hundred acres, sorry seven l land for seven hundred houses is owned by the City of York, that's not part of our case one way or the other, but we have offered you a distribution of the Greater York provision figure between the districts, because from Barton Willmore's very extensive experience of participation in local plan work up and down the country, I think we share the view that er City of York have, that Ryedale have, my colleagues to the left and right on this side of the table have, that there does need to be a distribution, otherwise there will be at best confusion as to whether local plans comply with the structure plan, and at worst a game of of pass the parcel and everybody will be conforming, but nobody will actually be possibly meeting the figures, and that is the situation that I don't think anybody would wish to see as a result of er the outcome of of alteration number three, I mean I don't know how the County Council would would really be able to to say whether they thought a local plan conformed to the structure plan, without knowing what that distribution was, perhaps in some bottom draw manner which is not now the approved way of going about these things, so that I think there does need to be a distribution for the proper planning of York, and before coming on to our to explain our figures a little bit, I should also say, perhaps in in response to remarks Mr Thomas made earlier on about the general character of the York area and the need to to protect that, that that course is precisely what the greenbelt is for, and what it does, it isn't necessary to extend that concept across the whole of the vale of York, and therefore to seek to er discount migration outside the greenbelt. [440] That is what the greenbelt is actually there for, and if you have it there for that purpose, as I said yesterday, the necessary corollary is that you have additional provision beyond it, and [...] I can't resist to offer Mr Wincup some support, I'm sure one piece of evidence that he gave you about the letter from the Parish Council, he's probably already replied to that Parish Council saying, as you're in the York greenbelt have no fear, all the Selby needs will pass straight across your heads and land somewhere else. [441] The erm point about are distribution within Greater York is that we have attempted to look at this in what I think is a a rational and realistic manner, we have looked, and you'll see this from our supplementary paper, I apologize for its lateness, but I think it's benefited from the additional thought that could be given to it, we have looked both backwards, at the present day, and forwards, we've looked backwards at past build rates, we've looked at the present day position in the sense of the population shares within Greater York, and we've looked forwards in terms of the commitment figures that are given in the N Y one paper that we've just been looking at, and taking all those things into account, and adding in what we see as the right location for a new settlement, namely Selby district, we come to the figures that are in our supplementary paper, and there is clearly a great deal of common ground between the evidence you get from looking either at past building rates or population shares, as now, or future commitments which all point towards a broadly similar distribution, we say, with the addition of a new feature namely the new settlement, so that I commend those figures to you as somebody who's actually dared to put their toe, or maybe their whole body into the water, and given you not only some numbers, but also a basis by which if you should er have a different Greater York figure in mind, a basis on which that could be rationally er approached, I would not certainly defend to the last ditch the need to put a figure of fifty dwellings into the structure plan for the Hambledon part of Greater York, there may be a cut off point beyond which you don't go, but certainly for Ryedale and Selby, with very substantial numbers there is a need to indicate what the appropriate division should be, and you could not for instance indicate what the er Ryedale non Greater York figure was, without someone telling us the, as the Chairman rightly said, having an idea of what the Ryedale Greater York figure should be, so it isn't really I think feasible to have district figures for non Greater York, and one Greater York figure, that doesn't er get away from the issue, and nor does it solve the potential for confusion. [442] My final point, is that, and we have had it raised this morning, erm from er I think it was consultants on behalf of the C P R E that there was sufficient capacity within Greater York, and they referred to a table in their [...] and their submission. [443] I had a close look at that table, obviously a matter of some interest and that's the reason I return to this, as I read the table, there is a very substantial amount of double counting within it, for this reason, that all outstanding er planning permissions are included once, and there are then separate categories of allowance for all types of sites, namely large windfalls, conversions, small sites, and allocated sites, those are all put in, er or most of them are put in at thirteen years worth, that being the remainder of the plan period to two thousand and six, it will not have escaped you that if you include thirteen years worth all the existing commissions are part of that thirteen years, and so [...] simplest approach to correct that table would simply to discount the outstanding commitments, because they're all counted again as part of the thirteen years, I do have a secondary point that the allowance for conversions is very much higher than what seems to be happening, and in what is in the tables that er Mr Thomas drew it to your attention from the York City er appendix eight, so that er on on two counts, but mainly the double counting one there is a great deal of er erm optimism, if I can call it that, in that table. [444] Thank you. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[445] Thank you. [446] Mr Curtis. |
| mr david curtis (PS3L6) |
[447] Thank you Chair. [448] David Curtis, York City Council. [449] Er I merely want to comment on the erm apparent misunderstanding on my comments on windfalls earlier on, erm it has been suggested that we we're tightening down on windfalls, was the quote actually used, erm, there is no intention in the local plan to er ignore the er windfalls, to actually deal with them in a different way than had happened in the past, clearly if sites come forward which are windfalls which are suitable in environmental terms then the City Council will give, as P B G one requires, the appropriate consideration to those applications, what I was merely saying this morning was the the likelihood of such windfalls coming forward, and the scale was clearly going to be substantially less than had occurred in the past, and the the figure of eighty a eighty a year, which was for a five year period, which was quoted to me, erm clearly would not be representative of my expectation of the future. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[450] Thank you. [451] Er Mr Spittle. |
| mr malcolm spittle (PS3L9) |
[452] Malcolm Spittle, County Council. [tape change] |
| mr malcolm spittle (PS3L9) |
[453] Erm I was going to pick up on a number of points that have been raised by previous speakers, but erm Mr Grigson and Mr Curtis seem to have er dealt with a few of those, erm just with regard to the the table put in by C P R E, with their figures, I would just agree with Mr Cur er Mr Grigson that there is a very substantial degree of double counting in those figures, there is also a very substantial degree of over provision in the allowance for for conversions, er past conversion rates in Greater York have averaged something like twenty nine dwellings per year, over a fifteen year period your talking about four hundred and thirty five dwellings, which is the figure that both York City Council and ourselves have have made allowance for for conversions, that compares with a figure of a thousand dwellings referred to by the C P R E and I see no foundation for that figure, erm, as I say Mr Curtis already picked up on the point about windfalls rates by Mr Thomas, erm just turning to the difference between the tables er submitted by the County Council and York City Council on the the residue within the er Greater York area, I would accept the figure, the figures put in the tables by Mr er by Mr Curtis, I think that they have picked up the the more recent planning permissions and the completions information, and they also take on board there more recent work on erm development within the city, and I I accept that table. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[454] Thank you. [455] Mr Smith. |
| mr ian smith (PS3L7) |
[456] Ian Smith, Ryedale District. [457] I'd like to comment on Mr Grigson's table, in particular the figure proposed for Ryedale, er his figure is based on the assumption that because Selby gets the new settlement it therefore gets a corresponding reduction in house building elsewhere in the Greater York portion of Selby. [458] The development strategy adopted in the Greater York study never envisaged that the settlement, or the district that got the new settlement would therefore get a corresponding reduction in the amount of land it had to provide to meet the needs of the Greater York area, the strategy we use to identify sites within the Greater York area that could be developed without compromising greenbelt objectives, and that the new settlement would be added on outside that area without a reduction in that that figure. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[459] Mhm. [460] Mr Cunnane. |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[461] Er Joe Cunnane,Sa representing Sam Smith's Brewery Tadcaster. [462] Just like to make a comment on Mr Grigson's submission erm points on erm the Greater York figure. [463] First of all I should point out that the Nor the County Council er figure of none thousand seven hundred is actually a figure for local needs plus one hundred percent migration, and if you follow Mr Thomas's figures that leaves a residual requirement of nine hundred and forty seven dwellings without any windfalls over the next thirteen years, which is quite inconceivable, so in order to establish his point on the need for the new settlement on tha on on his figures, the Bar Mr Grigson of Barton Willmore has to up the figure for Greater York to twelve thousand seven hundred, as set out in his erm paper. [464] The s the point I would make is that first of all I don't accept that twelve thousand seven hundred is er a tenable figure but that, probably the more important point is that there has to be a policy response, and a policy response to this issue demands that there is at least some response to the mi to the level of migration er you know my my my view has been put forward very clearly about that, but I would simply make make the point for the record that even accepting one hundred percent migration, there is no statistical case for a new settlement. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[465] Thank you. [466] Mr Sedgewick. |
| Unknown speaker (HVJPSUNK) |
[467] Sedgewick, Michael Courcier and Partners. [468] The may maybe I just comment on that that last that last point, which as I understand it it the the justification for a new settlement is brought about solely by increasing the requirement for Greater York to twelve thousand seven hundred, going through those figures there seems to me, for instance, for both Ryedale and Selby to be more provision than could be met in a single settlement, I I think the the figures put forward by Barton Willmore are more than can be met in existing allocations and a single new settlement of a reasonable size. [469] So I I think the new settlement remains justified even with the significantly lower figure for Greater York. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[470] Mhm. [471] Thank you. [472] I noted the point, erm I think to some extent we probably can now move forward to H two, in in a proper sense, but I'll ask Mr Davis er A if he wishes to give some reaction to the last few comments er and then your lead in to H two. |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[473] [whispering] Mr Grigson said he really [...] . [] |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[474] I assume Mr Grigson, as he hasn't raised his board has said all he wants to say at this stage on the points that have been made. |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[475] [whispering] In relation to factor [...] . [] |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[476] Do you want anything else on matter one, Mr Grigson. |
| mr steven grigson (PS3L8) |
[477] Mr Grigson, for Barton Willmore. [478] I don't feel any need to respond on on Ryedale o or to Michael Courcier. [479] There was one little bit of leftover, as you've given me an opportunity before I depart, and that was that erm we did discuss earlier today, under this heading the possibilities of erm their being sites on the inner edge or between the built up area, or there might become sites between the built up area and the inner edge of the greenbelt, I think the implication was they may be in Ryedale. [480] My understanding is that A those don't exist at present within the deposit plan, but if they did at some future date, for any reason, that their function would be to be used after two thousand and six to sustain the permanence of the greenbelt. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[481] Thank you very much. [482] Mr Davis. |
| mr peter davis (PS3L4) |
[483] Yes. [484] I think just two points. [485] Er erm we think the nine thousand seven hundred dwellings based on one hundred percent migration for the Greater York area is the appropriate strategic approach erm for the Greater York area, the County Council does not see the need for any policy intervention in terms of migration, in respect of Greater York in the way it feels is necessary in respect of er of four other districts. [486] Erm on a general point about the ability to find extra land, erm in and around the urban area erm of York, particularly erm on the inner edge er of the greenbelt. [487] Having been through the six months of the greenbelt local plan enquiry, I can say quite clearly to this er examination in public, that I doubt whether there is the land available erm er around the inner edge erm erm to increase the level of of housing development in and around the city without seriously prejudicing greenbelt objectives. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[488] Thank you. [489] Now, before you make your opening statement in the context of H two we have some extra papers to distribute. ... |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[490] [whispering] Er, Mr Donson leaving us? [] |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[491] [whispering] Yes. [] |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[492] [whispering] Mr Grigson leaving us. [] |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[493] [whispering] They both are . [] |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[494] [whispering] It would be appropriate to say something [] |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[495] [whispering] Yes. [] |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[496] [whispering] to them. [] |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[497] [whispering] Is Donson coming back? [498] ... Is Grigson coming back? [] |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[499] [whispering] Grigson? [500] I do I don't know. [501] I don't have handy [...] [] |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[502] [whispering] Don Donson isn't yet. [] |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[503] [whispering] Erm. [504] Just a minute. [] ... |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[505] Mr Grigson, are you retiring altogether from the fray? |
| mr steven grigson (PS3L8) |
[506] Yes I am, yes, sir. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[507] Thank you very much for your contribution. [508] Thank you. ... |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[509] [whispering] Ah, Mr Brighton. [] |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[510] [whispering] Mhm. [] |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[511] [whispering] No, Mr Mr Donson's with us all this week. [] ... |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[512] [whispering] We've put the slightly put the cat among the pigeons. [] |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[513] [whispering] Pardon? [] |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[514] [whispering] Haven't we put the cat among the pigeons? [] |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[515] [whispering] Yes, indeed. [516] It was [...] all that capacity elsewhere. [] |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[517] [whispering] I know. [...] . [] |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[518] [whispering] I mean that's more capacity than we need to [...] . [] ... |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) | [laugh] |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[519] [whispering] Tosh. [] ... |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[520] [laugh] . [521] [whispering] Do your [] |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[522] [...] [laugh] . |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[523] [whispering] do your black do your white dots drop into the black hole? [] |
| Unknown speaker (HVJPSUNK) |
[524] [laugh] . |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[525] [laugh] . |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[526] [whispering] [...] we have a [...] . [527] ... Right. [] ... |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[528] [whispering] It's very difficult to roll A and B together. [] |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[529] [whispering] [...] . [] |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[530] [whispering] Mhm? [] |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[531] [whispering] I wouldn't have said. [] |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[532] [whispering] No? [533] Alright. [] |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[534] [whispering] I know what you [...] . [] |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[535] [whispering] Well what's one new settlement to [...] [] |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[536] [whispering] No, two is two is a very important. [] |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[537] [whispering] Yes, I know that. [] |
| Unknown speaker (HVJPSUNK) |
[538] [...] a copy, a copy of these yet, Which we've nearly [...] . |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[539] Alright. |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[540] Thank you. [541] Ah. ... [sound of paper turning] |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[542] Are you ready to go [...] tell me tell me when. [543] Alright okay. |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[544] [...] . |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[545] No. [546] Alright. |
| Unknown speaker (HVJPSUNK) |
[547] Thanks. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[548] So can we now move in the formal sense to looking at the next issue for discussion, which covers policy H two, the Greater York new settlement, and the first part of the issue which we shall address is, does the proposed Greater York new settlement represent an appropriate and justified policy response to the assessed development land requirements of the Greater York area, and I'll ask Mr Davis to make his introductory statement. |
| mr peter davis (PS3L4) |
[549] Peter Davis, North Yorkshire County Council. [550] Thank you Chairman. [551] I'll go straight into er item two A I think the first thing the County Council would would wish to say this erm examination is that er today we are really seeing the culmination of I suspect er ten year work erm in Greater York by the Greater York authority and a particularly intensive period of work over the last five years, er by the Greater York authorities, the paper that I put round N Y five the matter two A really addresses the history and why we reached the conclusions corporately that we have and as all as we've already indicated erm progress was able to be made when the Secretary of State included a Greater York er dimension erm into the er into the structure plan in a the first alteration, erm and that enabled a body of work to be undertaken by the Greater York authority, and I think I ought to say at this point that the Greater York authority comprises of the County Council er and five District Councils, and there you have six different councils, all with an interest in the future of Greater York, sitting down together, trying to sort out the way in which the future of Greater York erm ought ought to be developed, and the means they did it did that of course was through the Greater York study, which began in nineteen eighty eight and started off immediately with a study of forty, fifty development, potential development sites, erm in and around er er Greater York which produced a report, as I said in on page three of the of N Y five, around about April nineteen eighty nine, the conclusions of which were quite clearly unacceptable to erm members of the Greater York authority, because they saw quite clearly, and they were supported by the public in this, that to continue peripheral development, which had been the pattern of development in the Greater York area, erm certainly through the sixties and seventies er was unacceptable in terms of its impact on settlements, and particularly er its impact erm on erm erm the York greenbelt which still at that stage erm had yet to be made statutory, and that was again one of the main stimuli to making progress, the need to s formally define er the York greenbelt. [552] The Greater York authorities therefore looked for a widening of the options available, er, in Greater York, and those that have seen the Greater York study, and it is a document that we've put in to the examination will see that there was a fundamental full scale wide ranging er assessment er of all the options er open er within the er Greater York er area and they are er set out erm in pages three er and four of N Y five. [553] The public consultation exercise that was part of that erm Greater York study, and quite clearly the Greater York study was not a statutory plan, it was an informal plan, but it was the only way really that progress could be made in the absence erm of adopted local plans in Greater York, it was essential that that document was pursued to give a framework for the preparation of district local plans er and the greenbelt local plan, and the resolution that followed the consultation and the long body of work, and I'll read it out, was that the development strategy for Greater York from ninety six to two thousand and six should be based on agreed sites within and on the periphery of the built up area, and that the residual requirement be met for the development of a new settlement or settlements located beyond the outer boundary erm of the greenbelt, a quite clearly there's a major policy implication there that a new settlement was not acceptable within the greenbelt but would have to be er outside the outer boundary of the greenbelt, and the public consultation on that er study er attracted widespread support for a new settlement strategy in Greater York, all six authorities agreed that that was the direction er that had to be taken, it also had another benefit in that it enabled work on the York greenbelt local plan erm to proceed and that has now been taken forward to the stage where the enquiry terminated in May, it's a joint enquiry in the greenbelt local plan enquiry, with a Southern Ryedale local plan enquiry in April ninety three, and we would hope that the inspectors report on that six month enquiry, when he considered all the objections to the er greenbelt proposals of the County Council, largely supported by the er District Council will be available er in the near future. [554] The County Council also accepted as part of this oral approach that there was a need for an alteration to the structure plan, because the approved structure plan did not make provision for a new settlement as an element of approved North Yorkshire strategic policy, and we've progressed that erm alteration through to the examination er in public er today. [555] So the current position is that there's been substantial progress er in Greater York, and I think its testimony to the willingness of the Greater York authorities to work together there that there's been such a level of agreement I think probably er never before achieved in the Greater York area as to the direction that Greater York erm er should take. [556] We think that on balance we have er the majority of the support of the public at large within Greater York, that this is the strategic er approach that is necessary for Greater York, it's necessary to protect the greenbelt and it's necessary to protect communities and villages er in and around erm Greater York. [557] Could I also say one thing finally, and that is the fact that we've tried to run together the alteration and the greenbelt local plan as concurrently er as possible, er it would appear that the timing erm is coming together reasonably satisfactorily erm in that we hope that the report from the greenbelt local plan enquiry, is not to er far distant, erm and we would expect, sir, that you will be reporting on the proceedings at this examination in public er in the not to distant future, well I think I did give an undertaking at the greenbelt local plan enquiry that the County Council, because the two are er interrelated to a degree, that I would expect the County Council would not wish to pursue either report er until er the other er is available, and that seems to the County Council to be entirely sensible, that the two reports, the structure plan alteration and the greenbelt local plan enquiry, erm should be looked at together. [558] There we are, sir, that's erm er er a very brief history erm of erm er of the new settlement strategy, erm it's one clear that the County Council thinks is the appropriate way erm er for the Greater York area er to proceed. [559] Thank you. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[560] Thank you. [561] I noted, and we've already had the flavour of it, in to some respect today, that initially you had almost unanimity of support from the District Councils er York City have changed their view erm and equally Hambledon are very luke warm, if I put it no more than that, er on the idea of a new settlement in the sense that they probably support the principle of the new settlement, but not in Hambledon. [562] But could you comment, and no doubt Mr Curtis will also want to amplify why York er seem to have cooled on the idea. [563] There is a there is reference in your paper to that. |
| mr peter davis (PS3L4) |
[564] Yes. [565] Peter Davis, North Yorkshire County Council. [566] I mean York City Council will obviously er Mr Curtis will obviously give his views on the situation, erm the particular issue that seems to have changed the mind of York City Council is the reference in P P G thirteen, transport to sizes of new settlement not being erm er desirable in in in transport terms, small scale resettlements. [567] Now there is no definition of what's small erm erm is erm in er P P G er thirteen and perhaps Mr Curtis could help us in due course erm on an assumption that the new settlement was somewhat larger that th what the County Council is proposing, whether that would erm change the view of York City Council, I I think there is another factor again I could be corrected on this by Mr Curtis and this tended to come out in the greenbelt local plan enquiry, er and that York City Council seem progressively to place more importance on peripheral development than on the new settlement strategy |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[568] Mhm. |
| mr peter davis (PS3L4) |
[569] erm that is my general feeling for erm erm erm the position, York's emerging views erm at the greenbelt local plan enquiry erm weren't shared by the districts er which surround the city, or by the County Council. [570] Strictly on P P G two terms er because of the effect er on the greenbelt, but I wouldn't want to go any further than that, that's my impression, Mr Curtis will undoubtably correct me if I'm wrong. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[571] Yes, I mean I noticed from the draft P P G thirteen that they do not define small. [572] How small is small? [573] Mr Curtis, do you want to |
| mr david curtis (PS3L6) |
[574] Yes, thank you, Chair. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[575] come back on that? |
| mr david curtis (PS3L6) |
[576] David Curtis, York City Council. [577] Erm, clearly their is a a long history of cooperation between the authorities on Greater York, and er I think it is important to explain the development of thinking on that, and the reasons why the City Council has, I would say progressively, er reduced its er the warmth of its enthusiasm to such a state that it's actually become extremely cold now. [578] The original dispersed development strategy ended up with a shortfall, something like two thousand dwellings, compared to the sites which had been agreed between the various authorities at the time, it's also worth noting that that was based on a dwelling target of nine thousand one hundred for Greater York, I think that's correct, over the period since actual sites which have been agreed between the authorities since then have clearly increased, so as you've seen in my appendix eight the residual requirement has now been reduced to a a level of nine hundred and forty seven. [579] The eighty nine strategy was actually supported by four of the authorities including the County Council, but clearly, and I fully appreciate why that decision was made two districts particularly, Ryedale and Selby, felt unable to support the strategy. [580] The City Council, faced with the view that er there was two thousand shortfall in dwellings, that clearly two of our most important neighbours in terms of their land area were unhappy with that proposal, agreed to er proceed to pursue the issue of the new settlement. [581] In that interim period of that work the draft P P G three came out, and made it quite clear that the new settlement would have to lie without beyond the outer edge of the greenbelt, and that was a fur a further consideration. [582] Since that time clearly we've also had a series of further er indications development government guidance on the issue, new P P G one, three, and twelve all produced in March ninety two, which made it quite clear the environmental considerations were to be given greater attention in development plans. [583] P P G three, the revised P P G three when it came out clearly, in my opinion changes the emphasis from the draft P P G three from the draft P P G three, paragraphs thirty two and thirty three which I would emphasize should to be read together, clearly indicates that new settlements are as someone said this morning, sorry, earlier in the discussion today, an issue of last resort. [584] This has further emphasized to ourselves with, I accept our reading of the draft of P P G thirteen, and also more work we've been doing on land in the city, and on the potential traffic implications in particular of further growth outside the ring road. [585] All of those factors lead the City Council to the view that the current level of residual given emerging government advice, the City Council could no longer support the idea of a new settlement of something like fourteen hundred dwellings set in the countryside beyond the outer edge of the York greenbelt. [586] It's interesting to note that actually now we've since made that decision the residual has as I've said come down to nine four seven, so if we do have a new settlement of fourteen hundred we're already ending up with a a higher level of proposed development for Greater York now, the nine seven would obviously be exceeded if we had a fourteen hundred new settlement within Greater York. [587] The further out from York the new settlement goes the less self contained it will be, the more the tendency will be for travel into the city, which is the main service centre to be car based. [588] The belief of the City Council is that, notwithstanding there are clearly difficult traffic problems in the city, there is more opportunity to encourage people to use other more environmentally friendly modes of travel by locating development in and on the edge of the main urban area, a view that's supported by P P G thirteen and the research document onto planning, transport and planning emis planning and transport emissions on which it was based. [589] It's for those reasons, sir, that the City Council feels that it can no longer support the proposed proposals for new settlement, just to come to your question about the issue of scale, I am not able to define what er small is in P P G three, it's obviously been left deliberately vague, but I would draw your attention to the Ucwetec T P A study I've just referred to which makes it quite clear in their terms that to be self contained in transport terms the nearest any settlement ne really needs to be in excess of twenty thousand people. [590] Now I could not countenance, and I'm sure none of the authorities around us could countenance a new settlement that scale in Greater York. [591] If you compare a fourteen hundred new settlement, three thousand people with the new settlements around York, as you've seen in our papers, and some of the papers circulating, it's very similar in size to many of the expanded villages around York, which are all, virtually without exception, commuter settlements for the urban area, so the inevitable consequence of that size of new settlement, in my opinion, be it fourteen hundred, be it two thousand five hundred dwellings, it will be primarily a large housing estate set in the open countryside. [592] On that basis the City Council is doesn't feel able to support to support that proposal. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[593] Thank you. |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[594] [whispering] Can we have the County Council's response to that? [] |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[595] Mr Davis, do you want to make any comment on that? |
| mr peter davis (PS3L4) |
[596] Er yes I do, erm |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[597] Before I return to other people. |
| mr peter davis (PS3L4) |
[598] I really don't want to hog the debate because I know there are other |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[599] No it's alright, alright . |
| mr peter davis (PS3L4) |
[600] But certainly one, three things I'd like to respond to erm erm mm Mr Curtis. [601] First of all erm he justified his view on environmental considerations as as considered by the City Council, I think we would say, the County Council, that one of the main considerations that has brought us to the conclusion that we have are environmental considerations, the environment of York and its immeding immediate surroundings, the protection er of the York greenbelt, environmental considerations have been er at the most er in our minds. |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[602] But if I may interrupt, how do you cope with the argument that Mr Curtis was making that if your settlement is, say, less than two and a half thousand it is no more than a large housing estate which relies on the centre of York for its functions, of service, shopping, entertainment, and therefore that the difference between that the difference between a new settlement beyond the greenbelt and peripheral development, in those terms, is no different. |
| mr peter davis (PS3L4) |
[603] Well Mr Curtis of course is erm is what I would describe as using inflammatory descriptions to try and do down what's going to happen with a a new settlement, erm he seems to be convinced that what we're going to end up with er in Greater York is a development of the sort of er er character that he has described, it would be the clear intention of the local authorities to ensure that an appropriate self contained community erm er is developed, now erm there is no re |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[604] Is that really feasible at that level? |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[605] Can, sorry, can I I don't want to stray into item matter B . |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[606] Mm, mm. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[607] [...] if we can at this stage |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[608] I just want to get the concept of |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[609] Yes, yes. |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[610] of the thing clear. [611] Is it really feasible that at the sort of level that's being talked about, be it your level or the level being put forward by some of the objectors to the structure plan, the new settlement could actually hope to provide a good level of comparison shopping, for example? |
| mr peter davis (PS3L4) |
[612] Well can we make it absolutely clear that no settlement, anywhere, er in North Yorkshire, or in York and Humberside probably is self contained. [613] If you want to en try and ensure that you're going to have a self sustained community, one hundred percent, you make sure that presumably you've got a show case cinema with fifteen screens there, er a B and Q, erm a whole range of of facilities that nobody ever needs leave, erm erm erm er that new settlement, the reality of the real world of course is that all settlements to a greater or lesser degree, er have a relationship with other er larger scale settlements, now then let's look at the new settlement, fourteen hundred dwellings, we estimate that that is going to be of the order of around three thousand three hundred people, now that is sizeable, it is not small, it is larger than a number of the small market towns er in North Yorkshire, like Boroughbridge, Settle, it is a significant development erm erm and within it erm there will be a requirement er be a requirement for a a a primary school, it justifies that. [614] Certainly we cannot provide a fully one hundred percent sustainable community, you'd be talking about some vast city to move towards that, erm the re the real world is that the the hierarchy of settlements, erm all settlements, have greater or lesser degree of facilities depending on their size, and there'll be no difference er to the new settlement, and I think to to run an argument on the basis of Mr Curtis er has run it is unfair to the concept of the new settlement. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[615] Thank you Mr Davis, I, I |
| mr peter davis (PS3L4) |
[616] Well there were two other points Chairman. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[617] Yes go on. |
| mr peter davis (PS3L4) |
[618] Erm, the the reference of last resort was Mr Thomas's reference erm it it is not a reference which I think you find anywhere er in government guidance, and I think what P P G thre three says is the opportunity to to pursue them will be relatively rare, we think this is a relatively rare circumstance, er in North Yorkshire, it's unique, er and it's entirely driven er by justifiable er reasons to protect the the wider environment of Greater York. [619] The third thing, and I gu would have to say it's a bit of a red herring thrown out by Mr Curtis is the issue of traffic growth con concern on traffic growth. [620] Could I say to you that in terms of Greater York the County Council is the highway authority, the County Surveyor advises the County Council on traffic implications as a concept, the County Councillors highway authority is satisfied with the merits er of a new settlement. [621] I won't go any further, because I know there are other flags up rou round the room, Chairman. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[622] Ca can I say, I'm attempting to stick with two A er, I think I'll take Mr Grantham, and then we'll adjourn for lunch. [623] But would you gentlemen who have flagged that you want to speak leave those flags up? [624] Alright? [625] Mr Grantham. |
| mr steven grigson (PS3L8) |
[626] Er, er, John Grantham, C P R E. [627] Er, sir, at the risk of straying slightly into into two B, you, do forgive me in advance, but you raised the specific point about size, and and erm there was er one or two statements that there isn't a a clear view on size in P P G three, I think it's important to to bear in mind the interrelationship between all P P G s and as Mr Curtis said, the research that that backs them up, and I I I point you to three quotes in the statement that C P R E have put in, erm i i i paragraph four point one seven,an and s the quote that attaches to that is taken from the research that erm er backs up draft revised P P G thirteen, transport, and erm I shall quote from that on this question of size,i it is also evident that smaller settlements, those with populations of less than fifty thousand, but particularly very small settlements are characteristically less transport emissions efficient than larger settlements, I think the the erm essence of of that particular piece of research is not as Mr Davis was implying to achieve totally self contained settlements, I don't believe such a concept exists, it's actually erm a planning land use in the long term to reduce C O two emi emissions something that is essential now to government policy, I think perhaps more instructive though is is the quote that I've in included in paragraph four point one nine and that's taken from er er this book here which I perhaps should submit the whole chapter in evidence to to the panel, I've only just included one quote, it's it's I suggest one of the more interesting reads that you may have as a result of this panel, it's by Colin Ward, and it's called New Town, Home Town, it's undertaken by er, sorry includes some of the work that's been undertaken by the University of Reading, erm and er David Lock Associates, on erm er new town research, and this this is due to be published by H M S O shortly, it's unfortunate that it wasn't available in time for this E I P, but I think erm, if you'll bear with me, I will read out the quote that I put in four point one nine, because I feel that it is useful on this question of of size, we concluded that if you are interested in environmental impact, energy conser consumption, and sustainability, new settlements have to reach a certain size to be worthwhile, it's parallel to the old arguments that used to take place around self containment in new towns, we found that new settlements of much less than five thousand houses, that's about fourteen thousand people are not really worthwhile because if they are smaller than that you are simply putting a housing estate in the countryside, a phrase that that has already been put round this morning, it appears that the best minimum for a new settlement, the best minimum, is about ten thousand houses, that's that's twenty five thousand people, which as it happens is about the size of the original garden cities. [628] Starting from the logic of sustainability, we end up with a very similar size for a new community to the one that Howard was writing about a hundred years ago. [629] I erm think that that is quite useful research that has been undertaken for government, and it it has been carried through, er as I'm sure everybody is aware, into the U K strategy for sustainable development, the consultation period of which is just concluding, erm I won't take you any more of the panel's time to read that quote as it's written in my in my statement. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[630] Yes, I I we have read it, we have read it. [631] Er obviously, I mean the new towns movement as conceived immediately after the war was geared to meeting London housing needs, you know, we're not comparing like with like, but I think, I take the point that you are making in terms of er sustainability. |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[632] [whispering] Mr Spittle [...] [] |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[633] Mr Spittle. |
| miss d whittaker (PS3L5) |
[634] to say something. |
| mr malcolm spittle (PS3L9) |
[635] Malcolm Spittle, County Councillor. [636] I was very interested to read this quote from David Lock, erm of David Lock associates, and I just wonder how it squares from the fact that er Mr Lock associates submitted an objection to H two on the grounds they wanted a settlement of eighteen hundred dwellings to the North of York. [637] Erm, it does seem to be something of a contradiction in terms there, and in fact Mr Lock isn't here today because his clients have subsequently withdrawn from the er E I P but er it would have been interesting to have asked him the question. |
| mr e barnett (PS3L3) |
[638] On that note, I think you should you should go and refresh yourselves. [639] Can we, can we reconvene at two o'clock, please. [end of session] |