North Yorkshire Local Access Forum

28 May 2025

NYLAF response to consultation on Proposed Modifications to New Settlement (Maltkiln) Development Plan Document

Report of: Stephen Clark

1.0 Purpose of the Report

To note the NYLAF response to the above consultation on plans for a major new settlement between York and Harrogate, as agreed in correspondence.

1.0 Background

1.1 This paper concerns plans for a new settlement located between York and Harrogate near to Cattal. The plans include at least 3000 residential units.

1.2 Formally the plans for the settlement are set out in a Harrogate District “Development Plan Document (DPD)” which was published in 2022. NYLAF responded to a consultation at the time on those plans, including on (a) the inclusivity of language around walking and cycling, and (b) the need for a grade-separated crossing of the A59 trunk road.

1.3 In autumn 2024 the DPD was the subject of a review by the Planning Inspector. Since then, and following set out processes, “Main Modifications” to the DPD were proposed by North Yorkshire Council in January 2025.

1.4 Following this a six-week consultation by North Yorkshire Council on the “New Settlement (Maltkiln) Development Plan Document, Schedule of Main Modifications” was run from 10 February to 24 March. The consultation is defined narrowly around the modifications to the plans. Consultation responses had to demonstrate that the document was "unsound".

1.5 In light of the significance and scale of the plans we agreed by correspondence that we would submit a formal response. Our last meeting preceded the commencement of the consultation.

1.6 Our consultation responses will be considered by the Planning Inspector as part of the final stages of his review. At the conclusion of the review the Planning Inspector will send a report to the North Yorkshire Council recommending whether or not they can adopt the plan.

1.7 The Development Plan Document, once adopted, will become part of the planning policy relevant to the new settlement. This is likely to be followed by developer-led masterplan(s) for the site. On the basis of both planning policy and masterplans individual planning applications will then be progressed.

2.0 Our response

2.1 The stated Vision for the “Maltkiln” settlement is that it is a place where people are not dependent on a car, and which will have a network of safe and attractive walking and cycling routes which connect people, places and facilities, including nearby villages. It is to have attractive and accessible green spaces both within and around the village, provide increased space for nature, as well as placing recreational opportunities close to the community.

2.2 These elements of the Vision are much in line with our own objectives of seeking improvements to public access for the purposes of (1) open-air recreation and enjoyment, and (2) utility or functional access. Our response was drafted in order to reflect both the development vision, as well as our own objectives.

2.3 Our response focussed on eight issues, all of which relate to our objectives in relation to open-air recreation and access to amenities.

· An inclusive definition of users of the walking and cycling network.

· Loss of previously identified priority green space, and related public access.

· Lack of assessment of options for provisions of grade-separated routes over railway and A59.

· Provision and improvements to public rights of way associated with Strategic Green Gap.

· Lack of clarity to statements about provision of walking and cycling routes outside of the boundary of the settlement.

· Access to recreation space and sport facilities.

· Residential off-street parking provision.

· 20-minute settlement.

2.4 Our formal response is in the attached Appendix, agreed through correspondence by 17 March. The Appendix includes formal “Representation Forms”, which sought to address why in our view the proposed modifications left the plan “unsound”, and how we would like to see the plan changed.

2.5 Our response has now been published by North Yorkshire Council. The Inspector is currently working on finalising his report, which may be published as soon as early summer. An update will be given to NYLAF setting out whether our representations have been reflected in the final planning documents.

APPENDIX: NYLAF Response to consultation on Proposed Modifications to New Settlement (Maltkiln) Development Plan Document

NORTH YORKSHIRE

LOCAL ACCESS FORUM

Maltkiln Development Plan Document Consultation

Planning Policy

North Yorkshire Council

Harrogate Civic Centre

St Luke’s Avenue

Harrogate, HG1 2AE

By email to: planpolicy.har@northyorks.gov.uk

North Yorkshire Local Access Forum

c/o Dawn Drury

Democratic Services

North Yorkshire Council

County Hall,

Northallerton, DL7 8AD

e: Dawn.Drury@northyorks.gov.uk

18 March 2025

Response to consultation on Proposed Modifications to New Settlement (Maltkiln) Development Plan Document

From: North Yorkshire Local Access Forum (NYLAF)

The role of Local Access Forums was defined in section 94 of the Countryside Rights of Way Act (2000), and the Local Access Forum Regulations (2007). Planning Authorities are required, in accordance with section 94(5) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, to have regard to advice from a Local Access Forum.

The North Yorkshire Local Access Forum covers the area of North Yorkshire Council (NYC), with the exception of the areas within the Yorkshire Dales and North York Moors National Parks. The Forum acts independently from North Yorkshire Council, however the secretariat is provided by NYC.

The primary objective of Local Access Forums in England is to seek improvements to public access for the purposes of (1) open-air recreation and enjoyment, and (2) utility or functional access, for example using rights of way to access public amenities.

We have chosen to prioritise our limited resources on the Maltkiln planning process because of its scale and ambition. The forum would like to thank the Inquiry participants for the changes that have been proposed with respect to the submission made by the NYLAF on 9 November 2022.

This letter summarises our response to this consultation in respect of eight issues listed below. These issues all relate to our objectives in relation to open-air recreation and access to amenities.

1. An inclusive definition of users of the walking and cycling network.

2. Loss of previously identified priority green space, and related public access.

3. Lack of assessment of options for provisions of grade-separated routes over railway and A59.

4. Provision and improvements to public rights of way associated with Strategic Green Gap.

5. Lack of clarity to statements about provision of walking and cycling routes outside of the boundary of the settlement.

6. Access to recreation space and sport facilities.

7. Residential off-street parking provision.

8. 20-minute settlement.

For each of these issues we attach the formal “Representation Forms” (see Appendix). We hope you will be able to take these matters into consideration, and are content to discuss any of these issues further with any of the Inquiry participants.

Regards

Signature redacted

Stephen Clark (Forum Member)

On behalf of, and agreed by, the North Yorkshire Local Access Forum

(Contact details via Dawn Drury – see top of letter)

APPENDIX: Responses from North Yorkshire Local Access Forum

REPRESENTATION F O RM

From North Yorkshire Local Access Forum (NYLAF)

Issue 1: An inclusive definition of users of the walking and cycling network.

1 of 8 representations from NYLAF.

Please Note: Representations must be specific and only relate to the Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, and/or Schedule of Policy Map Modifications, and/orSustainability Appraisal (SA) and/or Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA).

Please specifywhich consultation documentyour comment relatesto by ticking one of the following:

ÿ Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications. ü

ÿ Schedule of Policy Map Modifications

ÿ Sustainability Appraisal (SA)

ÿ Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)

If your comment relates to the Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, what is the Modification Number you are responding to? e.g. MM12

Main Modifications: MM1 (Sustainable Travel Objectives), MM4 (Policy NS1: Maltkiln New Settlement Allocation), MM14 (Policy NS5: Net Zero Carbon Movement and Active Travel), MM20 (Para 5.27: Justification for policy NS5), MM74 (Policy NS12: Green Blue Infrastructure), MM112 (Policy NS30: Sustainable Travel and Connectivity), M118 (Policy: NS31 Walking and Cycling), MM120 (Para 10.16: Justification regarding Policy NS31 and severance caused by railway and A59).

With the inclusion of the ProposedMain Modifications, do you considerthe Plan is Sound?

☐Yes ☐ üNo ☐ Not Applicable as comments made on Policy Map modifications, SA or HRA

If you do not considerthe Local Plan is sound, please specifyon what grounds:

☐ Positively prepared ☐Justified ☐ ü Effective ☐ üConsistent with National Policy

Enter your full representation here:

We do not consider that in respect of the modifications listed above the plan meets the needs of all potential users of the walking and cycling network. We do not think that as drafted it meets the requirements of the Equality Act 2010.

The language used in respect of these policies attempts to define a more inclusive definition by appending the term “suitable for micromobility”. We believe this modification is clumsy and also does not address all relevant needs for those not using a car. Local Access Forums are directed by the Secretary of State to be inclusive in their approach for reasons of non-discrimination and best value of provision, and thus as statutory consultees we ask that the Development Planning Document reflects this. The Forum asks that where “Walking and Cycling” is used as a general term, it should be clear that this is not an exclusive term, and that it should also include the full range of other types of user not using a car.

If your representation is more than 100 words, please providea brief summaryhere:

We believe the plans for Maltkiln should be based on a clearer definition of the range of users of the walking and cycling network, which should include the full range of other types of user not using a car. This should include those with mobility scooters, electric wheelchairs, micro-scooters (where legal), and horse-riders.

Please specifythe changes needed to be made to make the Plan sound:

New wording is proposed that:

“The plans for walking and cycling networks at Maltkiln will accommodate the full range of other types of user not using a car.

This definition could be further defined by noting that the walking and cycling networks will be designed to allow (a) “Inclusive Mobility” (as set out in the Department for Transport guidance document published in 2021), (b) appropriate usage of the cycle network by horse-riders, and (c) the use of e-scooters and other personal electrically-powered vehicles (“micromobility”) should future legislation allow their wider usage.”

It is suggested that these changes are either (a) incorporated into a new policy, to which the other policies cross-refer, or that (b) a footnote is appended to the proposed modifications listed above, wherever the term “walking and cycling” network is used. In the remainder of our comments we have used the first formulation.

We expect that the intent of our proposed changes is not contentious, however we also recognise that the consequential drafting may appear complex, and would be happy to discuss it further.

Please tick if you wish to be notified of New Settlement (Maltkiln) DPD updates:

☐ Yes I wish to be notified. ü

☐ No I do not wish to be notified

REPRESENTATION F O RM

From North Yorkshire Local Access Forum (NYLAF)

Issue 2: Loss of previously identified priority green space and related public access

2 of 8 representations from NYLAF.

Please specifywhich consultation documentyour comment relatesto by ticking one of the following:

ÿ Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications ü

ÿ Schedule of Policy Map Modifications ü

ÿ Sustainability Appraisal (SA)

ÿ Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)

If your comment relates to the Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, what is the Modification Number you are responding to? e.g. MM12

Main Modifications: MM4 (Indicative Development Framework - Map 2), noting the related Policies NS12 (Green Blue Infrastructure) and NS15 (Protecting Aubert Ings SSSI).

With the inclusion of the ProposedMain Modifications, do you considerthe Plan is Sound?

☐Yes ☐ üNo ☐ Not Applicable as comments made on Policy Map modifications, SA or HRA

If you do not consider the Local Plan is sound, please specifyon what grounds:

☐ ü Positively prepared ☐ ü Justified ☐ ü Effective ☐Consistent with National Policy

Enter your full representation here:

An area of green space near to Doodle Hills has been removed from the new version of the Indicative Development Framework (Map 2) and replaced with residential land and a new link road. There is no justification in the Modifications Document for the removal of the Doodle Hills green space from the Indicative Development Framework (Map 2). This omission is inconsistent with Policies NS12 and NS15, which remain largely unchanged.

Policy NS12 includes provision for attractive walking and cycling routes in respect of this policy, and for the provision of open spaces. The previous draft of the Development Plan Document described a need for the inclusion of an area near Doodle Hills as “Green Blue Infrastructure” (see Policy NS12 and para 6.6). Policy NS15 also identifies the Doodle Hills area as an alternative, semi-natural destination point, to mitigate the impacts of the Maltkiln development on Aubert Ings SSSI. It notes that Doodle Hills green space provides extended views over the new settlement towards York Minster, and should be served by two walking routes.

Whilst we might expect that the subsequent master-planning exercise (as per policy NS3) might refine the exact location of this green space, we would expect that a space of a similar size to that in the initial Indicative Development Framework, and meeting the same criteria (i.e. open space served by walking routes with a view towards York Minster), would be provided.

The Vision for Maltkiln (Para 2.1) is that “it’s a place where people are not dependent on a car. It has a network of safe and attractive walking and cycling routes which connect people, places and facilities, including nearby villages”, which has “Attractive and accessible green spaces both within and around the village [which] provide increased space for nature, as well as placing recreational opportunities close to the community”. Policies NS12 and NS15 very much support this vision: the changes to the Indicative Development Framework (Map 2) are inconsistent with it.

If your representation is more than 100 words, please providea brief summaryhere:

An area of green space near Doodle Hills has been removed from the revised version of the Indicative Development Framework (Map 2). The importance of this green space is consistent with the Vision for Maltkiln.

The Doodle Hills area provides extended views towards York Minster, and will act as an alternative walking destination, taking the pressure of the Maltkiln development of a nearby SSSI.

There is no justification in the Modifications Document for the removal of the green space near Doodle Hills from the Indicative Development Framework (Map 2). Policies supporting this green space (NS12 and NS15) are substantially unchanged.

Please specifythe changes needed to be made to make the Plan sound:

The Indicative Development Framework (Map 2) should restore the green space in the area of Doodle Hills as portrayed in the initial Indicative Development Framework (Map 2). This will make the Framework consistent with Policies NS 12 and NS15.

Alternately, we recognise some flexibility in the interpretation of the Indicative Development Framework might be desirable during subsequent planning and delivery phases. This flexibility could be achieved by re-wording policy NS3 to “require at least 9 hectares of green space to be provided. This space should meet the criteria of providing open space served by walking and cycling routes (which will accommodate the full range of other types of user not using a car), with a view towards York Minster.” (Note: The area of the green space in the Doodle Hills area on the initial Indicative Development Framework is approximately 9 Hectares.)

Please tick if you wish to be notifiedof New Settlement (Maltkiln) DPDupdates:

☐ Yes I wish to be notified ü

☐ No I do not wish to be notified

REPRESENTATION F O RM

From North Yorkshire Local Access Forum (NYLAF)

Issue 3: Lack of assessment of options for provisions of grade-separated routes over railway and A59.

3 of 8 representations from NYLAF.

Please specifywhich consultation documentyour comment relatesto by ticking one of the following:

ÿ Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications ü

ÿ Schedule of Policy Map Modifications ü

ÿ Sustainability Appraisal (SA)

ÿ Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)

If your comment relates to the Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, what is the Modification Number you are responding to? e.g. MM12

Main Modifications: MM4 and MM120 (Indicative Development Framework - Map 2, and Para 10.16 Safe Crossing Points of A59), noting the related Policies NS31 (Walking and Cycling), and (NS36 Highway Mitigation and Improvements).

With the inclusion of the ProposedMain Modifications, do you considerthe Plan is Sound?

☐Yes ☐ üNo ☐ Not Applicable as comments made on Policy Map modifications, SA or HRA

If you do not consider the Local Plan is sound, please specifyon what grounds:

☐ ü Positively prepared ☐ üJustified ☐Effective ☐Consistent with National Policy

Enter your full representation here:

The Vision for Maltkiln, set out in section 2.1 of the Development Plan Document, is for “a place where people are not dependent on a car”. It is to have a network of safe and attractive walking and cycling routes which connect people, places and facilities, including nearby villages; while bus and train links enable longer journeys.

In this context a bridge over the A59 to connect the walking and cycling networks of Maltkiln to Green Hammerton would play a big role in removing the severance this road will otherwise cause. Our representations in 2022 asked for such a crossing. The Indicative Development Framework (Map 2) indicates that the development of a Green Loop of walking and cycling routes includes three crossings of the A59.

The modified Indicative Development Framework (Map 2) also shows a newly proposed additional grade-separated road crossing over the railway. There is no justification provided for why an additional road crossing of the railway is proposed, nor why that road is shown as going through the area of green space that had originally been identified close to Doodle Hills.

We can see no evidence in the Development Plan Examination Library that the matter of a grade-separated crossing of the A59 for the walking and cycling network has been considered. A bridge over the A59 for those without a car would be considerably cheaper than, and preferable to, the second and unjustified road bridge over the railway in the revised Indicative Development Framework (Map 2).

A safe and attractive crossing point over the A59 for those not using a car should be agreed as part of the master-planning process. This grade-separated crossing of the A59 should be a pre-requisite for the development of a master-plan for the new settlement.

If your representation is more than 100 words, please providea brief summaryhere:

A safe and attractive grade-separated crossing point over the A59 for those not using a car should be a pre-requisite of the master-planning process. This is preferable to the inclusion of the unjustified second bridge over the railway shown on the modified Indicative Development Framework (Map 2). A grade-separated crossing of the A59 should be a pre-requisite for the development of the new settlement.

Please specify the changes needed to be made to make the Plan sound:

Policy NS36 includes a list of items beginning with the words “Measures to mitigate and improve the highway network will be required and will include..”. This list should include the phrase “A new bridge as part of the walking and cycling routes (which will accommodate the full range of other types of user not using a car) across the A59”. This bridge will be incorporated into the Indicative Development Framework (Map 2) and Masterplan (Policy NS 3). Policy NS3 should also be modified to reflect this intent.

The final sentence in Paragraph 10.16 (which supports Policy NS31 Walking and Cycling) should be modified as follows:

“A safe and attractive grade-separated crossing point over the A59 as part of the walking and cycling routes (and which will accommodate the full range of other types of user not using a car) is required. This bridge will be part of the Indicative Development Framework (Map 2) and the master-planning policy (NS3).

Please tick if you wish to be notifiedof New Settlement (Maltkiln) DPDupdates:

☐ Yes I wish to be notified ü

☐ No I do not wish to be notified

REPRESENTATION F O RM

From North Yorkshire Local Access Forum (NYLAF)

Issue 4: Provision and improvements to public rights of way associated with Strategic Green Gap

4 of 8 representations from NYLAF.

Please specifywhich consultation documentyour comment relatesto by ticking one of the following:

ÿ Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications ü

ÿ Schedule of Policy Map Modifications

ÿ Sustainability Appraisal (SA)

ÿ Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)

If your comment relates to the Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, what is the Modification Number you are responding to? e.g. MM12

Main Modifications: MM8 (Policy NS2: Strategic Green Gap)

With the inclusion of the ProposedMain Modifications, do you considerthe Plan is Sound?

☐Yes ☐ üNo ☐ Not Applicable as comments made on Policy Map modifications, SA or HRA

If you do not consider the Local Plan is sound, please specifyon what grounds:

☐ ü Positively prepared ☐ ü Justified ☐ ü Effective ☐Consistent with National Policy

Enter your full representation here:

It is unclear why the provision of, or improvements to public rights of way, in land covered by the Strategic Green Gap has been modified by the phrase “provided if necessary”.

One of the main thrusts of the plans for Maltkiln are that as a development it should be separated from neighbouring areas by green space, but that it should also be connected to that green space for the purpose of access and recreation.

We note that the Strategic Green Gap (a) includes at least one public right of way (a footpath running along the eastern boundary of the field east of Westfield Farm), and (b) shares its southern boundary with the proposed “Green Loop” (see the Indicative Development Framework - Map 2).

The policy should be strengthened to make it clear that a new public right of way will be created, as shown on the Indicative Development Framework (Map 2), on the southern boundary of the Strategic Green Gap to form the Green Loop. This would then connect to the footpath noted above (point (a)). Whilst there may be circumstances in which the establishment of this new right of way might be difficult to implement the force of the policy should make the presumption that such new rights of way will be created.

If your representation is more than 100 words, please providea brief summaryhere:

The modification suggests that there are circumstances in which there may be no need to provide for, or improve, rights of way. We dispute this, especially as the plans envisage a new right of way (“the Green Loop”) on the southern boundary of the Strategic Green Gap. The modification should therefore be removed.

Please specifythe changes needed to be made to make the Plan sound:

New wording is proposed that:

“Provision or improvements to public rights of way will be supported in this area, and a new right of way will be created on the southern boundary of the Strategic Green Gap, as shown on Map 2, to facilitate the creation of the “Green Loop” for the purposes of recreation and access.

Please tick if you wish to be notifiedof New Settlement (Maltkiln) DPDupdates:

☐ Yes I wish to be notified ü

☐ No I do not wish to be notified

REPRESENTATION F O RM

From North Yorkshire Local Access Forum (NYLAF)

Issue 5: Lack of clarity to statements about provision of walking and cycling routes outside of the boundary of the settlement

5 of 8 representations from NYLAF.

Please specifywhich consultation documentyour comment relatesto by ticking one of the following:

ÿ Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications ü

ÿ Schedule of Policy Map Modifications

ÿ Sustainability Appraisal (SA)

ÿ Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)

If your comment relates to the Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, what is the Modification Number you are responding to? e.g. MM12

Main Modifications: MM10 (Policy NS3 – para 4.11). Also relevant to Policy NS31 (Walking and Cycling)

With the inclusion of the ProposedMain Modifications, do you considerthe Plan is Sound?

☐Yes ☐ üNo ☐ Not Applicable as comments made on Policy Map modifications, SA or HRA

If you do not consider the Local Plan is sound, please specifyon what grounds:

☐ ü Positively prepared ☐Justified ☐ ü Effective ☐Consistent with National Policy

Enter your full representation here:

The sentence in para 4.11 which reads “With a network of connected walking and cycling routes which will involve land outside of the boundary of the settlement.” is not a complete sentence and is ambiguous.

It is our understanding that the intention is that a network of walking and cycling routes will be created, including over land outside the boundary of the settlement. Accordingly, the section should be redrafted to clearly reflect this.

In more general terms we feel that greater clarity is required in respect to the definition of the walking and cycling network as described in the Master-planning Design Principles (NS3).

It is noted that the development of a network of connected walking and cycling routes will require co-operation of land-owners not currently involved in the process. Some flexibility in the development of this policy would be desirable for all responsible and interested parties. It is suggested that the walking and cycling network is described in words as well as being portrayed on the Indicative Development Framework map (Map 2). Wording is suggested below.

If your representation is more than 100 words, please providea brief summaryhere:

The definition of the walking and cycling network is unclear. The current definition relies in large part on the Indicative Development Framework (Map 2) and high-level statements in Policies NS3 and NS31. We feel that the objectives for the cycling and walking network are more likely to be delivered if some latitude is created for the parties responsible for its implementation. We therefore propose that a description of the key characteristics of that network should be added to the Master-planning policy (NS3).

Please specifythe changes needed to be made to make the Plan sound:

We also propose that greater latitude is given to the promoter in respect of the Master-planning of the walking and cycling network by including in Policy NS3 the following.

“A network of walking and cycling routes (and which will accommodate the full range of other types of user not using a car) shall be provided which is segregated from road traffic. The network should:

· Make use of existing public rights of way, and also seek to create new rights of way where necessary.

· Include connections from the new settlement to each of Cattal village, Green Hammerton and Kirk Hammerton.

· Include a grade-separated crossing for walking and cycling over the A59.

· As far as reasonably possible a “green loop” should be created that encircles the settlement boundary at a distance of no more than 2km.

· Any section adjacent to the A59 must be segregated from the road by a fence, wall or hedge.

· Where it is necessary elsewhere to follow a public road consideration should be given to separating the cycling and walking network from the road by a fence, wall or hedge.

· A section of at least 1km of the green loop should follow the River Nidd. “

The sentence in para 4.11 starting with the words “With a network of connected walking and cycling routes …” should be replaced by the wording below:

“A network of connected walking and cycling routes will be created on land outside of the boundary of the settlement.” For context this is should be followed by “An appropriate delivery mechanism will be explored in partnership with the relevant stakeholders.”

Please tick if you wish to be notifiedof New Settlement (Maltkiln) DPDupdates:

☐ Yes I wish to be notified ü

☐ No I do not wish to be notified

REPRESENTATION F O RM

From North Yorkshire Local Access Forum (NYLAF)

Issue 6: Access to recreation space and sport facilities

6 of 8 representations from NYLAF.

Please specifywhich consultation documentyour comment relatesto by ticking one of the following:

ÿ Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications

ÿ Schedule of Policy Map Modifications ü

ÿ Sustainability Appraisal (SA)

ÿ Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)

If your comment relates to the Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, what is the Modification Number you are responding to? e.g. MM12

Main Modifications: Changes are shown to the location of sport pitches on the revised Indicative Development Framework (Map 2).

With the inclusion of the ProposedMain Modifications, do you considerthe Plan is Sound?

☐Yes ☐ üNo ☐ Not Applicable as comments made on Policy Map modifications, SA or HRA

If you do not consider the Local Plan is sound, please specifyon what grounds:

☐ Positively prepared ☐Justified ☐ ü Effective ☐Consistent with National Policy

Enter your full representation here:

The Vision for Maltkiln (Para 2.1) is that is that it will have “Attractive and accessible green spaces both within and around the village [which includes] placing recreational opportunities close to the community”.

The proposed location of sports pitches is around 2km from the secondary school location and up to 1km from the primary schools. It is suggested that the sports pitches should be within 400m of the school sites (approximately a 5-minute walk).

As we have noted in other representations there is a need for some flexibility in how the Indicative Development Framework is to be implemented.

If your representation is more than 100 words, please providea brief summaryhere:

As above.

Please specifythe changes needed to be made to make the Plan sound:

The master planning policy (NS3) should make clear that the planned sport pitches should be within 400m of the school sites.

Please tick if you wish to be notifiedof New Settlement (Maltkiln) DPDupdates:

☐ Yes I wish to be notified ü

☐ No I do not wish to be notified

REPRESENTATION F O RM

From North Yorkshire Local Access Forum (NYLAF)

Issue 7: Residential off-street parking provision.

7 of 8 representations from NYLAF.

Please specifywhich consultation documentyour comment relatesto by ticking one of the following:

ÿ Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications ü

ÿ Schedule of Policy Map Modifications

ÿ Sustainability Appraisal (SA)

ÿ Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)

If your comment relates to the Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, what is the Modification Number you are responding to? e.g. MM12

Main Modifications: MM16 (Policy NS5: Net Zero Carbon Movement and Active Travel) and MM129 (Policy NS37: Minimising Car Usage).

With the inclusion of the ProposedMain Modifications, do you considerthe Plan is Sound?

☐Yes ☐ üNo ☐ Not Applicable as comments made on Policy Map modifications, SA or HRA

If you do not consider the Local Plan is sound, please specifyon what grounds:

☐ ü Positively prepared ☐ ü Justified ☐ ü Effective ☐Consistent with National Policy

Enter your full representation here:

We are concerned that the residential parking provision of one car parking space or less per residential unit will lead to considerable on-street parking in practice unless explicitly addressed at the planning stage. This would make walking routes on pavements considerably less attractive to those walking, cycling or otherwise without a car.

The widely followed Homes England’s “Building for a Healthy Life” (2020) and the companion paper “Streets for a Healthy Life” (2022) states that “Reducing car parking should not be used as a way of reducing levels of car use and ownership. Designers should anticipate realistic levels of car parking demand, guarding against displaced and anti-social parking”.

We would anticipate that the corresponding provision for “off-lot” parking will be large. We propose that the amount of off-lot parking is quantified, and that analysis is carried out to demonstrate that the level of off-lot parking is consistent with the Indicative Development Framework (Map 2) and does not lead to a reduction in the amount of green and open space in the settlement.

If your representation is more than 100 words, please providea brief summaryhere:

We are concerned that the residential parking provision of one car parking space or less per residential unit will lead to considerable on-street parking. This would make walking routes on pavements considerably less attractive.

Homes England’s “Building for a Healthy Life” states that well designed development needs to “anticipate realistic levels of car parking demand, guarding against displaced and anti-social parking”.

We propose that analysis is carried out to demonstrate that the level of off-lot parking is consistent with the Indicative Development Framework (Map 2) and does not lead to a reduction in the amount of green and open space.

Please specify the changes needed to be made to make the Plan sound:

Policies NS5 and NS37 should (1) make clear that on street parking will be restricted in the implementation of plans, (2) that the level of proposed off-lot parking is quantified, and (3) that analysis is carried out to demonstrate that the level of off-lot parking is consistent with the Indicative Development Framework (Map 2) and will not require a reduction in the amount of green and open space in the settlement. These policies should refer to the standards set in the Homes England’s “Building for a Healthy Life” (2020) and the companion publication “Streets for a Healthy Life” (2022).

Please tick if you wish to be notifiedof New Settlement (Maltkiln) DPDupdates:

☐ Yes I wish to be notified ü

☐ No I do not wish to be notified

REPRESENTATION F O RM

From North Yorkshire Local Access Forum (NYLAF)

Issue 8: 20-minute settlement

8 of 8 representations from NYLAF.

Please specifywhich consultation documentyour comment relatesto by ticking one of the following:

ÿ Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications ü

ÿ Schedule of Policy Map Modifications

ÿ Sustainability Appraisal (SA)

ÿ Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)

If your comment relates to the Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, what is the Modification Number you are responding to? e.g. MM12

Main Modifications: Changes to MM9 (NS3: Master-Planning Design Principles), MM20 (Policy NS5: Net Zero Carbon Movement and Active Travel) and MM114 (Policy NS30: Master-Planning Design Principles).

With the inclusion of the ProposedMain Modifications, do you considerthe Plan is Sound?

☐ Yes ☐ üNo ☐ Not Applicable as comments made on Policy Map modifications, SA or HRA

If you do not consider the Local Plan is sound, please specifyon what grounds:

☐ ü Positively prepared ☐ ü Justified ☐ ü Effective ☐Consistent with National Policy

Enter your full representation here:

One of the primary objectives of the Local Access Forums is to seek improvements in access public amenities. The vision for Maltkiln is that it will be a place where people are not dependent on a car, and where there is a network of safe and attractive walking and cycling routes which connect people, places and facilities. This element of the vision echoes our own objectives.

This concept of a 20-minute neighbourhood is that all trips to and from central amenities can be made within 20 minutes (i.e. 10 minutes each way). It is reasonable to assume that a ten-minute trip by foot could cover 800m. Given many of such trips will not follow the “crow-fly line” a distance of 600m in a straight line may be a more appropriate yardstick to use. (To note the initial Indicative Development Framework (Map 2) included a scale bar that equated a straight 800m to a 10-minute walk.)

Our concern is that parts of most of the residential plots shown on the Indicative Development Framework (Map 2) lie further than 800m in a straight line from the railway station (taking that as a central amenity). Given that many journeys by foot will inevitably not follow straight lines it seems that a very substantial proportion of the housing proposed in the new settlement will not support the 20-minute neighbourhood aspiration. Indeed a number of the residential plots include land up to 1.2km from the centre equating to a 30 to 40-minute round trips.

If your representation is more than 100 words, please providea brief summaryhere:

This concept of a 20-minute neighbourhood is that all trips to and from a central amenity can be made within 20 minutes (i.e. 10 minutes each way). It is reasonable to assume that a ten-minute journey by foot could cover no more than 800m. A very substantial proportion of the housing proposed in the new settlement will not support the 20-minute neighbourhood aspiration.

Please specify the changes needed to be made to make the Plan sound:

Policy NS3 should be modified so that plans address the distribution of the residential plots so that they are consistent with the definition of a 20-minute neighbourhood. This should include an exercise to quantify the predicted walking times across the settlement. Policy NS3 should make clear that any increase in the density of the settlement should not come at the expense of the green space within 800m of the centre.

Please tick if you wish to be notified of New Settlement (Maltkiln) DPD updates:

☐ Yes I wish to be notified ü

☐ No I do not wish to be notified