Agenda item

Recommendation:

The Executive are asked to recommend to Full Council that work on the Ryedale Local Plan review be halted and that work undertaken to date be considered, as appropriate, in the preparation of the new Local Plan for North Yorkshire.

 

Considered – A report of the Corporate Director Community Development proposing a change to the resolution of the Council to continue with preparations in respect of the Ryedale Local Plan Review.

 

Councillor Derek Bastiman introduced the report and drew attention to the host of different district and Borough Council Plans all at different stages, inherited by the new Unitary Authority.  He noted the new North Yorkshire Plan would cover the whole of the area currently covered by those existing Plans and provide a holistic development strategy and consistent policy framework across the county.  He also stated the Council’s commitment to having the new Plan adopted by 2028.

 

Specifically in regard to the Ryedale Plan, he drew attention to the legal advice sought by Ryedale District Council which advised the review of their Plan would take longer than anticipated, and that further work would need to be undertaken in terms of the scope of that review.  The review of that Plan would therefore not be completed within a significantly shorter period than the time taken to produce the new North Yorkshire Plan, and it would have a limited shelf life given it would soon be replaced by the new North Yorkshire Plan.

 

He also suggested it would be difficult to justify the production of two Plans at the same time as it would be confusing for the local communities, businesses and other stakeholders, and would consume significant resources. Finally, he offered to visit Malton Town Council with senior officers to discuss their concerns and to help ensure they were picked up early in the Plan making process.

 

It was noted that two public submissions had been received, as follows:

 

1. Mr Ian Conlan, Mayor of Malton Town Council stated:

“We have significant issues with the existing Ryedale Plan that we would like this committee to address, namely:

i.       Housing distribution. Malton is required to take too much housing. 50% of housing in Ryedale is allocated to Malton and Norton, with just 25% of the population.

ii.      Local Occupancy Condition is imposed, not in Malton, but in all non-service villages, to the extent that key community infrastructure in those villages in threatened, such as schools, with no affordable housing provision.

iii.     Village boundaries have not changed since 1995.

iv.     Transport capacity within Malton and Norton has been reached, exceeding the limit assessed in the 2010 Transport Assessment.

v.      Air quality in Malton’s designated Air Quality Management Area is already at dangerous levels for human health and risks getting worse.

 

All these issues are inter-related.

·           Congestion has worsened around Butcher Corner and the Level Crossing, heavy traffic has increased massively on Highfield Rd making the walk to school increasingly unsafe,

·           The haulage industry wants to remove the weight restriction at the level crossing, some ignore it and this authority is reluctant to enforce it

·           the AQMA will experience an increase in air pollution contrary to WHO recommendations. 

·           Meanwhile, numerous villages around Ryedale which have been effectively frozen in time are losing out on the benefits of new development whilst being overwhelmed with second homeowners and holiday lets for those who do not use local services, resulting in the loss of schools, shops, and pubs.

 

This is unacceptable, needs urgent attention and should not be allowed to wait until a plan for the whole county is adopted, that is unlikely to be met even within 10 years. Malton Town Council have been so concerned about this issue that they leafletted the whole of Malton’s residents seeking comments on Ryedale’s consultation on housing distribution policies. An overwhelming majority of respondents objected to the current situation.  If left unamended, whatever officers say, the consequences are that these issues will get worse, so please do not halt the review, as the new plan could take decades to adopt.  York for example still has no adopted local plan and North Yorkshire is far bigger and more diverse than York.

 

2. Paul Andrews, Malton Town Councillor and Chair of Habton PC stated:

“The way the officers have presented their report suggests that David Manley’s advice unequivocally leads to the conclusion that there is a significant risk that, if the Review of the Plan proceeds to inspection within its present scope, it will be dismissed as unsound. However, this is NOT quite what Mr. Manley says.  The question is: how significant is this risk?

 

I refer to para. 6 of Mr. Manley’s advice. This makes clear that there could be a clear local justification for a plan period of less than 15 years depending on material planning considerations, and if so, the reviewed plan would be sound.

 

 It is also clear from case law that government circulars such as the NPPF are not law and can be departed from where material planning considerations warrant it.

 

Malton Town Council has obtained the advice of London counsel, Mr, Paul Stinchcombe KC of 39 Essex chambers. He advises (inter alia) that the following material planning considerations apply and satisfy Mr Manley’s requirement for a clear local justification:

i.       The fact that Local Plans are to be reviewed every 5 years in order for them to be kept up-to-date which is an imperative of national planning policy. There was a “light touch” review in 2016, so that 5 year period has already expired;

ii.      Moreover the plan itself dates back to 2012, since when there have been three further iterations of the NPPF (in 2018, 2019 and 2021). The extant Ryedale Plan is, therefore, already out of date;

iii.     One particular consequence of the Plan being out-of date is the likelihood, that the Ryedale Plan area is unlikely to sustain a 5 year housing supply until adoption of the new Plan for North Yorskhire, which means that:

·          The policies which are “most important for determining” any application will be out of date, including village development limits, the local needs occupancy condition, housing targets, the whole of Ryedale’s housing land distribution policies – particularly in the context of the impact of further development on the Malton AQMA and;

·          The “tilted balance” in favour of development provided for by para 11(d) of the NPPF will be engaged;

·          Hostile applications by speculative developers will be likely; and

·          There will no longer be a Plan-led system in Ryedale to deal with the same, when the system is meant to be genuinely Plan-led – see para 15 of the NPPF;

i)       That lacunae cannot be met by the proposed Unitary Authority’s Local Plan till 2028 at the earliest;

iv.     In the exceptional circumstances to which the Local Government reorganisation in North Yorkshire leaves Ryedale, the only way in which to secure a 5-year housing land supply and safeguard a genuinely Plan-led system is to pursue a limited LPR, and identify the additional housing allocations required in advance of, and up to the date of adoption of, the subsequent Unitary Authority Local Plan; and

v.      It is precisely to facilitate such outcomes that paras 17-19 of the NPPF allow flexibility in the way policies for the development and use of land are produced

 

Counsel advises that, in the circumstances, if the Review of the Ryedale Plan is halted, Malton Town Council will have grounds for a limited judicial review. Halting the plan would also be a very good reason to invite the Secretary of State to exercise his powers of intervention under sections 21 and 27 of the 2004 Act as amended by the Housing Planning Act 2016 and the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017. This could mean this council could lose control over the plan making process. This is something I would prefer to avoid, as all of us want to have a good working relationship with this council.  In the circumstances, members are requested to defer consideration of this matter for further discussion between members and officers.”

 

Councillor Derek Bastiman thanked the public participants for their contributions including the summary of the legal advice that the Town Council had sought. 

 

In response to Mr Conlon’s submission, he confirmed that the strategy and policies of the Ryedale Plan were found to be an appropriate, effective and sound planning framework for the Ryedale area when the Plan progressed through its examination. The plan was prepared to cover the period to 2027.

 

He noted that the development that had taken place in Malton and Norton, together with remaining planned allocations, were within the highway and air quality technical evidence that was used to test the level and distribution of growth at Malton and Norton as the plan was prepared.  Also that the evidence demonstrated that Air Quality within the AQMA had improved over the life of the plan. 

 

He also noted:

·          The Ryedale Plan supported housing development in larger villages and was linked to locations where services were provided (schools, shops and public transport), and affordable housing provision at all villages in the former Ryedale area.

·          All of the issues raised by the Town Council would be reviewed as a new local plan was prepared for North Yorkshire.

·          If going forward the new Council was of the view that a different strategy was appropriate it would need to consider strategically and in the context of the roles of all market towns and villages across North Yorkshire, as opposed to those in the former Ryedale area in isolation.

·          The Council was confident that it would produce the new local plan for North Yorkshire within five years from coming into being - there were examples of many authorities, including newly formed unitary authorities that had made timely progress with plan production.

 

In response to Mr Andrew’s submission,  Councillor Derek Bastiman stressed that in confirming the reorganisation of local government across North Yorkshire and the creation of the new Unitary Authority, Government had made it clear that it expected the Council to prepare a new local plan within five years of the new authority coming into being. He also noted the Council was legally required to prepare a county-wide local plan within that period. 

 

He acknowledged the Town Council’s concerns around specific policies of the Ryedale Plan; housing land supply and the consequences of being unable to demonstrate a deliverable five year land supply.  He also confirmed:

·          In preparing the new plan, the Council would have to determine its approach to how it should focus and distribute development in the future, including the quantum of development to the towns and villages and what the policy implications would be across North Yorkshire.

·          Current land supply across the legacy District areas ranged between 5 and 16 years. Depending on completion rates and the level of new planning permissions, there were other areas of North Yorkshire which might not be able to demonstrate a five year land supply up to the point at which the new North Yorkshire Plan was in place. 

·          At the same time as moving forward with the new plan, the Authority would have to make decisions on planning applications and use the development management process to maintain housing land supply in the interim period, as has been done across North Yorkshire in the past.

·          Progress on the production of the North Yorkshire Plan would help to inform the development management process.

·          A solid body of evidence would be prepared, and the emerging development strategy would be used to inform the release of land in advance of the adoption of the new plan where needed.

·          The plan making process was not a risk free process, as confirmed by the different legal opinions. Irrespective of whether a review of the Ryedale Plan could take place as a stand- alone full review or as a partial review/ roll forward - it was for the Council to decide how best to proceed in the circumstances.

·          Under both scenarios, resources would be diverted from the production of the North Yorkshire Plan

·          The Council had a responsibility to prepare a new plan for the benefit of all communities across North Yorkshire and that it was confident in the legal advice which it had received. In the circumstances it was considered that the new Council must focus its plan making resources on preparing the new North Yorkshire Plan, in the time in which it was expected to do so.

·          Plan-making powers have been conferred on North Yorkshire Council through Local Government re-organisation.

 

He again suggested that a process in which two plans covering the same area were prepared at the same time would be very confusing for members of the public who the Authority had a duty to ensure were fully engaged in the plan making process. It would also duplicate effort and had the potential to frustrate progress on the development of a strategic development strategy for North Yorkshire. He confirmed that any review of the Ryedale Plan would be superseded by the new North Yorkshire Plan in five years and would have a short lifespan.

 

He therefore stated:

·          The Council would be surprised if Government decided to use powers to intervene in the plan-making process at such an early stage in the life of the new authority. Notwithstanding this, the Council would ask its Officers to contact the responsible officials at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to check that the planned approach to delivering a new Local Plan for North Yorkshire, aligned with their requirements for plan-making by the new Authority.

·          The Council had taken further legal advice in response to Malton Town Council’s summary of the legal advice that it has received. It advised that the triggers for intervention by the Secretary of State if work on the Ryedale Plan was halted were ‘very far from self- evident’.

 

Finally, Councillor Derek Bastiman reiterated his offer to meet with Malton Town Council ahead of the full Council meeting on 19 July 2023, to discuss the key points arising from the latest legal advice, and the Town Council’s concerns.

 

Both public participants welcomed the opportunity to meet with the Executive Member before the full Council meeting.

 

Councillor Gareth Dadd queried the balance of risk should the Council choose to proceed as recommended and it was confirmed that the Council had received robust legal advice on the matter, and that the Authority’s stance on controlling development led by a strong Plan was in line with that of Malton Town Council.  It was also confirmed that to do as requested by Malton Town Council would require a departure from the guidance and exceptional circumstances, which did not exist.

 

In regard to the risk from hostile planning applications, it was confirmed the existing Plan would continue to add weight even after its expiry, as would the emerging Plan. Councillor Simon Myers asked that Malton Town Council engage in the consultation on the Authority’s new draft Housing Strategy.

 

Councillor Derek Bastiman thanked officers for their work on the report and for their ongoing work on Plan development.

 

The Executive all voted in favour of the recommendations, and it was

 

Resolved – That it be recommended to Full Council that work on the Ryedale Local Plan review be halted and that work undertaken to date be considered, as appropriate, in the preparation of the new Local Plan for North Yorkshire.