Members of the public may ask questions or make statements at this meeting if they have given notice and provided the text to Barry Khan, Assistant Chief Executive Legal and Democratic Services – email: barry.khan@northyorks.gov.uk or in writing to Barry Khan, Assistant Chief Executive Legal and Democratic Services, County Hall, Northallerton DL7 8AD by midday on Friday, 16 February 2024. Each speaker should limit themselves to 3 minutes on any item.
If you are exercising your right to speak at this meeting, but do not wish to be recorded, please inform the Chairman who will instruct anyone who may be taking a recording to cease while you speak.
Minutes:
There were seven public questions, as follows:
1. The following public question was read out by Hazel Peacock, Oatlands Road Safety and Active Travel Campaign – Road Safety:
I am Hazel Peacock, from Oatlands Road Safety & Active Travel Campaign.
I would like to start off with expressing gratitude to Cllr Duncan and officers on their commitment to delivering the 20mph scheme for south and west Harrogate. In particular to the Area 6 team for all their work especially Melisa Burnham and Heather Yendall. We look forward to our continued working with them on the scheme.
The issue and scheme is a cross party one and I would also like to thank all the members of the Harrogate and Knaresborough Area Committee who have supported it and express particular thanks to Cllr Pat Marsh, Cllr John Mann and Cllr Arnold Warneken for advocating and championing it.
The scheme is a great step forward. Therefore, given the road safety concerns and speed exceedances we and NYC are aware of on the arterial routes in the zone “What can be done to improve the safety of the children, older people and wider community on those arterial roads where there are schools and urban destinations (shops, train stations, hospitals, football clubs and businesses) and limits of 20mph declined?”
Harrogate Grammar School is situated on one, Willow Tree Primary School on another and a third has 5 schools and childcare settings on or just off of it; with Oatlands Infant School, Oatlands Junior School, Harrogate College, Busy Bees nursery, St John Fishers Catholic High School, Oatlands playing field, a business park, Hornbeam Park Train station (with 326,000 passengers pa/893 per day) and M&S Food Hall.
On this road at 15:27hrs on 17 January 2024 a pedestrian suffered “severe head injuries” as the result of a collision whilst using the signalised crossing by Hornbeam Park Train station; a key crossing used by children and families travelling to and from Oatlands Junior School, Infant School, Harrogate College, Harrogate Business Park and rail passengers passing from the car park to the platform.
With a density of schools on this road and schools situated on the others mentioned - safety is of paramount concern and the urban location and the characteristics of the roads are of key consideration.
Can you advise how these characteristics are considered and if built as new today what changes would be necessary, particularly in the case of the road with Oatlands Infant School and Hornbeam Park train station where there is a descent of 39ft (1/25) between the train station and Crimple Beck bridge. As the only route for pupils arriving by train and attending St John Fishers Catholic High School and St Aidan’s CE School and families travelling to Oatlands Infant and Juniors using the narrow pavement of approx 1209mm is intimidating alongside HGVs and double-decker buses coming downhill at 30mph.
Also, can NYC advise how the protected groups listed in the Equality Act 2010 have been considered in the equality impact assessment screening for the arterial roads with schools; which include age/(children and older people), disability, sex and pregnancy and maternity?
Finally, the importance of 20mph where there are young people is further supported in the research by Prof John P Wann, Damian Routler and C Purcell in “Reduced sensitivity to visual looming inflates the risk posed by speeding vehicles when children try to cross the road” 2011, which finds the neural mechanisms for detection of looming are not fully developed until adulthood:
“For a given pedestrian crossing time, vehicles traveling faster loom less than slower vehicles, which creates a dangerous illusion in which faster vehicles may be perceived as not approaching”.
The study shows strong developmental trends in sensitivity so that children may not be able to detect vehicles approaching at speeds in excess of 20 mph, creating a risk of injudicious road crossing in urban settings when traffic speeds are higher than 20 mph.
I hope you are able to support us make these roads and the environments for our schoolchildren and community safer.
Many thanks for listening and for your ongoing support.
Note: At time of writing this a visit was schedule to Hookstone Road with Area 6 team at afternoon home time to see the issues and visit the key areas of concern.
Councillor Keane Duncan, Executive Member for Highways and Transportation, provided the following response:
On 18th December 2023, the Corporate Director in consultation with myself, approved a proposal to introduce 20mph speed limits on a wide range of residential roads in the West and South of Harrogate subject to satisfactory consultation on the necessary Traffic Regulation Orders. The approved scheme would also see the existing 30mph speed limit remaining on Leeds Road, Hookstone Road, Hookstone Drive, York Place and Leadhall Lane because of the function of these roads which are classed as Strategic and Main Distributer Roads. However, the council acknowledges the location of schools on these roads and has as a result agreed to carry out corridor reviews of signing and lining in these areas. Officers have recently facilitated the installation of two 30mph VAS signs on Hookstone Road as an example of what can be done.
NYC has also introduced a Schools Street Pilot on Beechwood Grove, just off Hookstone Drive and improvements to the local footpaths and crossing points between both Oatlands Infants School and Oatlands Junior school have been identified.
I was very sorry to hear of the accident that occurred last month on the signalised crossing and my thoughts are with the pedestrian that was injured. However, it is not practical to superimpose full new build design standards relating to horizontal and vertical alignments to existing urban roads that have developed over a long period of time.
An Equality Impact Assessment was considered as part of the approval of the 20mph & Zone Policy in January 2022 by the Executive and it is important to note that the application of this policy and any consequent changes of any speed limit requires a formal Traffic Regulation Order and consultation with stakeholders as part of the decision-making process.
The 20mph speed limit and zone policy approved by the Executive in January 2022 is consistent with the latest DfT guidelines for assessing speed limits on local roads and I am also pleased to confirm that officers continue to liaise with the campaign group and a meeting is planned for next week (Wed 28 February) with them and local councillors to discuss concerns and potential further improvements that could be carried out in the local area.
Hazel Peacock then asked a supplementary question, and Councillor Duncan responded that a written response would be provided.
2. The following public question was read out by Ian Conlan – 20 mph speed limits:
I was delighted to hear at the Transport Scrutiny Committee that 20mph speed limits are now being rolled out across North Yorkshire, including in North Back Lane in Terrington, a tiny narrow street with 2 village schools on it. I am slightly puzzled that the main street in Terrington was missed off the scheme, leaving elderly and young alike vulnerable.
Malton's 20mph request for all 30mph areas to become 20mph, agreed at council over a year ago, with many more streets, pedestrian and traffic volumes than Terrington, has been told "no timescale for its implementation, if at all".
How long is the actual waiting list for schemes requested today? What is the prioritisation criteria if not a simple waiting list? What is the timescale for when you start installing 20mph across larger urban areas as you are currently considering in Harrogate, for instance? A strategy was going to be worked on last summer across all speed limits in the County to be completed over a period of a few months, we are now 7 months later, what is the date when this will be published?
With a new Mayoral authority being set up this May, what is North Yorkshire Council's Transport and Road Safety Strategy, and how will you demonstrate public support for it?
Will you be conveying to the new Mayor the huge support across the County for 20mph limits in built up areas?
This has already been demonstrated in Parish Council votes in triple figures for default 20mph, Area committee Votes, and the numerous consultations and petitions undertaken by residents and parish and town councils on this.
All the above have demonstrated substantial and majority support for default 20mph.
The context is that the City of York have just undertaken a public consultation to inform their Transport plans to help them work closely with the new Mayor with a clear democratic mandate. Will you do the same, or better?
I present you today with a York and North Yorkshire wide petition, organised by 20’s Plenty and Action Vision Zero, on the latest evidence of that support, widening to include Vision Zero Safe System Approach which requires a whole suite of measures, including 20mph limits, to bring down to zero killed and serious injuries on our roads. This same petition has gone to City of York Council, as both areas are covered by the new Mayor. It includes support for a target for zero killed and seriously injured by 2030, a Safe Systems approach, including default 20mph speed limit in built up areas where people are, including arterial roads in built up areas where people are.
I am sure members would like to demonstrate with clarity that they are as committed as I am about improving the safety of the most vulnerable people, elderly, children and disabled on our roads, and also making quieter streets, and our places kinder places to be.
Councillor Keane Duncan, Executive Member for Highways and Transportation, provided the following response:
The council has only recently updated its 20mph speed limit policy to reflect the latest Department for Transport guidance following a thorough review and we have also undertaken to review all speed limits across the county using a new Speed Management Strategy which is to be developed.
Turning specifically to the locations mentioned, the request for a 20mph speed limit in Terrington referred only to North Back Lane to support road safety outside the schools. There was not a request for or identified need to extend the scheme wider within the village.
In Malton the Town Council passed a motion for all 30mph roads to be reduced to 20mph and subsequently submitted a request to NYC which was declined as the default application of 20mph speed limits is inconsistent with our recently updated policy.
Speed limits are currently introduced by the respective Area Highways teams and timescales for delivery can vary depending on the scale of the approved scheme, consultations and the completion of governance and legal processes and how this work is prioritised against other competing service demands.
We will be carrying out a strategic review of all speed limits in the county and work has commenced to establish the outline form and resource need of that project. This remains a priority and is being progressed and, given the size of our road network, will take up to 5 years to complete.
The council has revised its policy to have greater flexibility in its assessment of applications where it is appropriate and with the support of the local communities rather than unnecessarily imposed. This is resulting in many more schemes being delivered where it is appropriate to do so and has community support, which is essential to the success of any such scheme.
I am pleased to say that NYC has a policy which supports the implementation of 20mph schemes and will review all applications in accordance with that policy which is robust and fit for purpose.
I note the receipt of the petition and can confirm that we already have an existing Local Transport Plan in place and alongside City of York are developing a new plan which will sit under the remit of the new Combined Authority so there will be parity and documents that align across all three authorities.
Mr Conlon asked a supplementary question and Councillor Duncan responded.
3. The following public question was read out by David Watson – The Proposed Council Tax Premium – Second Homes:
By way of a background. With only three minutes allotted time it is not possible to go into details of the politics surrounding what is being proposed by North Yorkshire Council. But sufficient to say that it has gathered much media attention and controversy.
The article in the Telegraph best summarises the situation:
“The problem is not second homeowners; it is politicians failing to understand the issues and having the courage to do something about it – it really is not difficult.”
Council tax premiums on empty properties with a view to incentivising property owners to bring those properties back into use is commendable. My concern is purely the proposal to introduce a 100% Council tax surcharge on what the Government has classed as second homes.
My circumstances. I was born in Scarborough, moving to the property I now own when I was ten, my parents having purchased the property in 1959, I inherited the property when my father passed away in 2004.
My family having used the property extensively, all referring to the property as a family home.
As my family have owned the property for the last 65 years.
I do not believe that I can be accused of creating a shortage of affordable housing.
However, the Council’s proposed approach to dealing with a lack of affordable housing is to place an additional tax burden on second homeowners.
As the tax burden is substantial this naturally delivers the message that I and my family are no longer welcome in Scarborough, as for me private home ownership in Scarborough is no longer affordable.
The Council inferring that I need to sell or consider alternative uses, e.g., AirBnB, which certainly would not be well received in the neighbourhood. Having had a long association with Scarborough, along with family and friends in Scarborough, this is a difficult message to accept. And even more difficult to explain to one’s family especially grandchildren, who enjoy coming to Scarborough.
My question for the Council.
The Government has stated that the Council has the ability to reduce the liability for Council Tax in relation to individual cases or class(es) of cases that it may determine where national discounts and exemptions cannot be applied. Also, the Council has stated that there would always be exceptional cases and officers would have the ability to grant reductions if certain criteria were met.
Can the Council please clarify how it intends dealing with exceptional cases, as surely the Council is not intending to classify all second homeowners as ogres eating up affordable housing.
Is this to be discussed and or considered as part of today’s proposal or dealt with separately?
Can the Council please clarify their position on how the premium tax is to be applied, and the exceptional cases dealt with, along with the Council’s rationale for their position.
Foot note: Would like to record my thanks to Councillor Eric Broadbent for his guidance.
Councillor Gareth Dadd, Executive Member for Finance and Assets, provided the following response:
Thank you Chairman. The government has defined second homes as properties that are no-one’s main residence. This was agreed by Council at the meeting last year, but legislation was not passed to allow it to be introduced from April 2024. So Councillors are today being asked later in the agenda to introduce this premium which if agreed will come into force on 1 April 2025. Whilst we are still awaiting the details of the adaptations from these premiums from government, we understand the broad areas of exemptions. Properties being actively marketed for sale or rent; properties undergoing structural repairs; job related dwellings; and certain dwellings the occupation of which is restricted in some manner by planning rules. The duration of these restrictions are anticipated in some cases for 6 months. Applications will be invited an assessed on individual circumstances and it is anticipated that some evidence will be requested for example evidence that a property is for sale and the price being asked is one which may reasonable be achieved. In addition to these exemptions is a general ability to consider reductions in council tax liability. In short, we have a duty for the betterment and promotion of our communities. In some localities of this county, we have communities which have been decimated by second homes with the resulting, unintended as they are, consequences on schools and other community assets. We all know the effects of this, and this is one tool in this authority’s toolbox.
4. The following public question was read out by Mary McCartney – Selby Plan:
Cllr Bastiman, at the Executive meeting on 6 February you explained why the current Council policy of a 40% target for affordable homes, for all housing developments, has been removed from the emerging Selby Plan.
You said: “changed economic circumstances mean that the level of affordable housing that can now be justifiably requested is reduced from that set out in the adopted core strategy”.
We have a housing crisis Cllr Bastiman, we need an increase in affordable housing not a reduction. More social housing to rent, and more starter homes to help people get on to the home ownership ladder.
This emerging Selby Plan sets out the proposals for house building in the Selby area for up to 17 years. I am aware that it will, eventually, be superseded by a new North Yorkshire wide plan. But, no-one can predict when that North Yorkshire Plan will be adopted. One thing we do know about emerging local plans is that they get delayed, often for years.
And, no-one knows what the “economic circumstances” will be in six months’ time, let alone two or three years ahead.
I assume Cllr Bastiman that you do understand that once a local plan is adopted, it cannot be changed, not even if the economic circumstances change?
So, if this plan is adopted, with your reduced number of affordable housing, and we see, in a couple of years’ time that the economic circumstances are changed, with the big builders making obscene profits again and paying out eye-watering bonuses to their bosses again, the Selby area will be stuck with your reduced number of affordable homes being provided. And that cannot be changed.
Do you think that would be acceptable Cllr Bastiman?
And could you please explain what the current “changed economic circumstances” are, that mean, in a housing crisis caused by a shortage of affordable homes, North Yorkshire Council think it is okay to badly let down those people, in the Selby area, who need social housing or are aspiring to home ownership, by reducing the number of affordable homes that will be provided by this emerging plan?
Local plan polices should not be made for short term reasons.
The 40% target is just that, a target; a sensible target that is adaptable, depending on the economic circumstances and the individual development sites. Your 5%, 10% and 20% policy is not adaptable it cannot be increased. no matter what the economic circumstance are. That is ridiculous.
The 40% target is eminently sensible, although I would like to see it enforced more robustly, and it should be retained so that the people of the Selby district get those much needed affordable homes.
Councillor Derek Bastiman, Executive Member for Open to Business, provided the following response:
I acknowledged in my explanation on 6 February that there is a high level of affordable housing need within the Selby Local Plan area and went to on to explain that the proposals within the Selby Local Plan strike the right balance between meeting these needs when tested against viability.
The approach we are taking aims to deliver housing for local people in a planned way. To do this we must ensure that sites are deliverable. The policy approach to affordable housing is underpinned by the necessary evidence and gives us the best chance of getting a sound Local Plan which will help us to achieve this aim.
There are many ‘asks’ on development, alongside providing affordable homes new developments also have to provide and or contribute towards new infrastructure such as schools, transport improvements, community and health care facilities, with increasing costs as well new building regulations requirements to tackle climate change and mandatory requirements such as biodiversity net gain. This all imposes increased costs on development, and this is the changed economic circumstances to which I referred. In conclusion the 40% target that was contained in the Core strategy is no longer supported by the evidence.
I must stress that the percentage requirements for affordable housing in the Selby Local Plan are minimum requirements and does not limit the potential for delivering more affordable homes on a particular scheme. The affordable housing targets in the emerging Selby Local Plan remain unchanged from the previous Publication Draft in 2022.
5. The following public question was read out by Jeff Bramley, Chair of Hambleton Parish Council: Selby Plan:
At the Selby and Ainsty Area Committee meeting on 19 January, members were told that the four new site allocations in the Revised Selby Publication Plan document had not previously been included for reasons that had now been ‘addressed and overcome’.
HAMB-A was added in the Revised Plan for 128 dwellings, land which has had permission REFUSED numerous times for the following reasons, in short:
1. …the scale and location significantly outside of settlement development limits would result in a pattern of growth that is not appropriate to the size and role of Hambleton.
2. … The scale and location … would be detrimental to the amenities of residents in the vicinity of the site.
And, I quote, “no amendments… could reasonably have been imposed” to make it acceptable.
HOW have THESE reasons for refusal now been simply ‘addressed and overcome’ enough for this site to be included in the Revised Plan? And can the Council understand how proposing to change Development Limits to shoehorn another 128 houses into Hambleton because a developer is pushing for it which makes it an easy option COMPLETELY UNDERMINES the whole concept of having Development Limits to protect our rural villages?!
Can the Council also see how continuing to allow developments of this size, as would happen in Hambleton on approval of this Revised Plan, means our rural community will have grown by 62% without any infrastructure or amenities upgrades? This is NOT sustainable growth; it is reckless and ill-considered. UNSUSTAINABLE development, which goes against National Planning Policy.
Hambleton Parish Council has repeatedly stressed how Hambleton is not able to cope with such rapid growth and no infrastructure. It understands how important it is to get the 5-year land supply identified because insufficient land supply is exactly how the Whitacres estate came to be in the village! It urges the Council to direct officers to REMOVE the proposed housing allocations in Hambleton and possibly insist they redevelop Brownfield sites instead of destroying fertile land and having to implement a Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS)! So many other sites would be more suitable for this, but the easy option is to do as the developers say – it is time to stop taking the easy way out!
Hambleton has had enough, we will not stand by and let this happen in our community.
Councillor Derek Bastiman, Executive Member for Open to Business, provided the following response:
The level and distribution of new development across the Plan Area is set out in the spatial strategy of the emerging Local Plan and is under pinned by a Settlement Hierarchy. This Hierarchy and the allocations to deliver the planned level of growth is underpinned by detailed evidence set out in supporting background papers. In summary it is considered that the allocations in Hambleton are supported by evidence and should remain within the draft plan and be the subject of further statutory consultation. All comments received during the consultation period will be fully considered and addressed before deciding whether to submit the plan to examination.
Specifically in relation to HAMB-A, an application was refused in 2017 on the site, based on the national and local policies and material considerations that prevailed at the time. The planning context since that point has moved forward, and the emerging plan must re-evaluate the role of each village in the district to set appropriate development limits to meet the needs of the Plan Area.
6. The following public question was read out by James Clark
Council, I use my 3 minutes to address two problems. Namely the unsustainable and disproportionate level of development in Hambleton, and the lack of investment and foresight that has been shown by the updated draft plan.
I have no question, but this is an opportunity to present my perspective, so that those who do not live in Selby district and my village can understand the significance of the issue.
When considering Heronby, please take into account that Hambleton is already suffering the same problems which have gone unheard for years and there has been no real meaningful investment into our community.
Hambleton is a rural village without any significant amenities or infrastructure. Hambleton is set to increase by more than 60% in a short space of time, something that will erode the nature and characteristics of a village as it is forced to become a town. We will increase from around 14-1500 people- the proposal for over 350 homes will disproportionately increase the size and population of the village. This level of development is unprecedented and has not been seen before in my village or my local area.
I understand that development has to happen so we can provide enough homes. I was not against the proposal for Heronby, However what is proposed in the alternative is not sustainable. Our village lacks safe access to the A63, proven by recent incidents and the death of a villager. The A63 is already very busy and that is set to get worse as more is built in Selby. Adding to the village increases that risk.
That said, our amenities have been lacking for a significant period of time. York refuses to cooperate with our district and we are forced to rely on Scarborough and Hull services. Again, building more homes adds to this problem.
Heronby was set to help alleviate all of these issues. It would have been provided with new dentists, GPs, pharmacies and access to York, a major city with employment opportunities. This has effectively been abandoned because there is difficulty finding a solution to the traffic on the A19 and the need for a bypass. I would like the council to consider that this is and will be a daily occurrence for Hambleton. We have managed the situation until recently when it resulted in a death.
I see no promise of any increases in amenities, safety or bypass around Hambleton. Instead I see a miscalculated and short-sighted decision to redistribute housing into a rural village that is already struggling and is lacking support.
The planned developments are allowing for continued development outside of our village boundaries. The rapid and unsustainable development is proven by the existing Taylor Wimpey estate that will now be developed upon, not less than two years after it completed. It’s inevitable that this will happen again and Hambleton, as a peaceful rural village, will disappear.
I urge Council to read and consider the representations that I made. It is a lengthy document that should help the Council understand why I stand here today.
Councillor Derek Bastiman, Executive Member for Open to Business, agreed to provide a written response.
7. The following public question was read out by Alex Smith, Kirk Hammerton Parish Council – Maltkiln New Settlement:
The interests of this new council’s residents will be better served by rolling the DPD into its new Local Plan, rather than submitting now.
Why should the new council have this demanding cuckoo already in the nest before the new Local plan has even hatched?
The New Settlement policy hasn’t been rigorously tested.
It’s worth reminding ourselves that the Planning Inspector had notable reservations about the Council’s New Settlement policy, particularly the number of dwellings that could be appropriately accommodated - a matter he suggested, that could be addressed in a Plan Review; and also the proximity to nearby villages.
Obviously, the Inspector’s comments were made before a new rather fundamental constraint was revealed in 2023: the availability of the land itself.
The land availability ‘car crash’ is one that the council has actually steered towards, as it’s tried to navigate through the problems of having chosen this site for this many houses.
In 2020, as per Fig 1, HBC’s preferred location for the New Settlement was the
‘Hammerton option’.
Caddick had already submitted the Maltkiln planning application.
HBC’s long-standing preference for Hammerton discouraged Caddick from having serious land agreements, particularly in the western part of their site. For the 50 Ha in Fig 1, the agreement was due to expire in 2022; for the 75Ha - and this is this an important point - Caddick never had a land agreement or understanding of any kind. My understanding is that the landowner had no intention of this land ever being made available.
Later in 2020, HBC were realising that the Hammerton option was going to be too much trouble in all kinds of ways and started to steer away from it – but time was running out.
Hence, in 2022, just before their demise, HBC launched the DPD. As shown in figure 2, it had now adopted the form, the boundary, and even the name of the Caddick planning app.
Thereby running head on into the land availability issues, and so almost immediately having to pause the DPD.
Those issues mean there’s likely to be ongoing legal and financial friction - with potentially further complications if it turns out that HBC have misrepresented the known available land in the LP Examination and in the High Court.
The DPD is too short-term / unstrategic
The NPPF is clear that new settlements should have policies looking at least 30 years ahead. But there’s precious little in the DPD that looks beyond 2035.
Are Councillors sure that NS isn't going to be another Harrogate-centric project vacuuming time and resources from their areas?
For Harrogate councillors, what will be left for investment in the West of Harrogate - which has more new dwellings than the NS, but precious little new infrastructure.
Does it necessitate a Harrogate relief road? What’s the effect on the York ring-road?
The data only goes to 2035.
And if Heronby is to return in the new Local Plan - shouldn’t 2 new settlements 13 miles apart be part of a thought-through strategy?
Isn't it in the interests of the new council’s residents to have a joined-up plan-led approach? If not, what’s the point of the new council?
Affordable Housing
There must be some advantage? Affordable housing? After all, hasn’t this proposal been compared by Cllr Myers to the great social housing projects of the past?
Well, unfortunately, even the mention of a 20% affordable ratio has been removed from the DPD. So it’s likely the NS will deliver only 12-15 affordable dwellings a year for the life of the development.
So why have the additional expense and the questionable ethics of the CPO just so you persevere with a remarkably uncertain and ineffective way to deliver the houses your communities need?
And why do this at a time when you'll be reviewing every policy, apart from the only one - the New Settlement Policy - that the Planning Inspector presciently said actually might need one?
Councillor Derek Bastiman, Executive Member for Open to Business, provided the following response:
The principle of a new settlement in the Hammerton/Cattal area is established in the adopted Harrogate District Local Plan and forms a key part of the Plan’s growth strategy. This approach was thoroughly tested at the Examination into that plan.
Stopping work on the DPD and allowing it to be picked up as part of the new local plan would undermine the ability of the Council to pursue a plan-led approach to the new settlement in the event of speculative planning applications in the area.
In relation to land availability, there is and will continue to be on-going dialogue with relevant landowners. However, we are satisfied that the necessary tests for delivery of the Development Plan can be met. If submitted as proposed, this will be explored in detail at examination in public.
The draft DPD sets a clear and ambitious thirty-year vision for Maltkiln and a policy framework to guide how it is developed; there is nothing short term about this proposal.
In respect of affordable housing, the DPD requires it to be provided in line with the policies of the adopted Local Plan. This requirement is 40%, although I do acknowledge the potential viability challenge of delivering this particularly in the early phases.
8. The following public question was read out by Paul Townsend on behalf of Green Hammerton, Hunsingore, Walshford with Ribston and Cattal PC, Kirk Hammerton and Whixley Parish Councils – Maltkiln New Settlement
Good morning. My name is Paul Townsend from Kirk Hammerton Parish Council, but I represent each of the four Parish Councils most closely affected by the proposed Maltkiln development; Green Hammerton, Hunsingore, Walshford with Ribston and Cattal PC, Kirk Hammerton and Whixley. This is a joint statement from each of those parishes and represents our common view.
We want to be quite clear at the outset: we are not asking Council to abandon Maltkiln, or to build a new settlement somewhere else. Local parishes accepted some time ago that a significant development would be going ahead in our area. Our members have given up a lot of time over the past 4-5 years liaising with the Council and the developer to enhance the scheme. If Maltkiln is going to happen, we want it to deliver the maximum benefits to make up for the disruption our residents will experience over the next 20+ years.
The important thing is to get it right. The latest version of the DPD doesn’t achieve this. It needs more work. We’re asking Council to vote today to defer the submission until various things have been dealt with properly. We can’t accept that there’s no time for this, because we’ve just had a period of more than a year when nothing has moved forward.
Consultation
The first problem is lack of public consultation. After months of radio silence, officials suddenly published a new draft DPD and are rushing to send it straight to the planning inspector, with no time given for public comment.
It’s been several years since the Council arranged any public-facing meetings to explain its strategy. No public meetings were held as part of the regulation 18 or 19 stages. Yes, Covid was partly to blame, but that was 3 years ago now.
There has been no attempt to seek views from the Liaison Group, or anyone else, regarding the latest draft of the DPD, even though this is the document which will be reviewed by the planning inspector and despite significant changes to the project. This is not the inclusive approach people were promised from the new unitary authority and is neither reasonable nor proportionate. Time should be allowed for proper consultation and explanation. No doubt the project is behind schedule, but it’s not local people’s fault that this has happened.
Affordable Housing
When this project began, there was a policy commitment to create 40% affordable housing. That was an important part of creating an “exemplar” new settlement.
As NYC’s own, recently published, Housing Strategy explicitly states, Harrogate is one of the most expensive places to live in the North of England and desperately needs affordable homes. Yet the latest DPD, which most of you are being whipped to vote through today, contains no commitment to build a single affordable home in the biggest development the area has known in living memory.
This cannot be right and it’s not what we were promised. Please take more time to consider and make the policy joined-up.
Infrastructure
Anyone who has been involved in large projects (and there are plenty of people in our 4 villages who have) knows that the requirements for infrastructure need to be clearly stated, and carefully costed, at an early stage. Otherwise the risk is that costs run out of control, corners have to be cut and some important infrastructure may not be delivered at all. Look at HS2.
This is how the DPD deals with some of the biggest features of Maltkiln infrastructure:
· A59 improvements and dual carriageway: we don’t know if the A59 will be dualled or not, let alone what the costs would be. Result? It probably won’t happen.
· The road bridge over the railway: the stand-out feature of this development since day 1, but there’s no permission in place to allow it to happen, even in principle. Network Rail are said to want £25m just to say yes, on top of the costs of actually building it. That hasn’t progressed in 4 years.
· The link road to the A168: an important measure to reduce traffic and to give Maltkiln its own sense of place and identity, but there’s no costing for it and who knows if the land is even available?
· Secondary school: everyone will have to travel to Boroughbridge, which will be upgraded using money from the developer. Yet the same school now wants to close down its 6th form, for which it has the support of NYC’s Education department. Do they talk to NYC’s Planning Department? We don’t know.
· Flooding: the development will result in increased run-off of surface water. Ultimately this will drain into the River Nidd, adding to the flooding risk in our area or downstream in York. The DPD says nothing about how this risk will be assessed and managed.
Surely it’s obvious this all needs more thought and preparation. Why rush into submitting something so half-baked?
Deliverability
Almost half the development land isn’t controlled by the developer any more, and about a quarter of it never has been. It looks like nobody checked this properly and just took the developer’s word as gospel. Surely the land issue has to be sorted out before going to the next stage. Otherwise the scheme risks being delayed by a lengthy legal battle.
The Council Executive has said it will use a Compulsory Purchase Order to acquire land if needed, but (as the Executive confirmed in response to a question at its meeting 2 weeks ago), it has no idea which land it intends to buy, nor what the cost would be. When NYC is already confirming a loss of £47m in its first financial year, surely someone needs to get more of a grip on the financial implications of this development?
We hope it will be clear why our Parish Councils are concerned about the scheme proceeding as it currently stands. A lot more work now will save time and money further down the line and we urge you to vote to delay the submission of the DPD.
Thank you.
Councillor Derek Bastiman, Executive Member for Open to Business, provided the following response:
Firstly, I would like to acknowledge and thank the Parish Councils for their constructive contributions at the Community Liaison Group meetings which both myself and officers have valued and appreciated. Like you, we want to get this right and ensure that we deliver the clear and ambitious thirty-year vision for Maltkiln that is set out in the DPD.
I now turn to the specific points that you make. Consultation has been carried out in line with the requirements set out in the relevant Statement of Community Involvement. Whilst face to face meetings were not held, consultations were well publicised and the consultation statement indicates high levels of engagement with 800 responses from some 131 individuals and organisations received at Regulation 19 alone. It is not normal practice to undertake further consultation following Regulation 19 unless significant changes are required. We do not believe this to be the case for the Maltkiln DPD.
In respect of affordable housing, the DPD requires it to be provided in line with the policies of the adopted Local Plan. This requirement is 40%, although I do acknowledge the potential viability challenge of delivering this particularly in the early phases.
We agree that delivering infrastructure to support the new community at Maltkiln is a key component which is why we have prepared an accompanying Infrastructure Delivery Plan and introduced a modification to the DPD to provide a greater focus on ensuring that it is successfully delivered.
The Council is satisfied that the necessary tests for delivery of the Development Plan can be met. If submitted as proposed, this will be explored in detail at examination in public.