[speaker001:] [recording starts a few seconds into afternoon session, day three of enquiry] sustainability, viability, as in a conceptual sense, and I would also like to suggest that in pushing this discussion forward we ought to bear in mind the, how shall I say it, the principles as espoused by the Department of the Environment in their planning policy guidance note three, er and in particular those spelt out in paragraph thirty three. And those if you would, for those who have not got them available, erm, we can have them copied and obtain them for you, but I suspect all of all of you sitting round the table will have P P G with you.
[Miss D Whitaker:] .
[Mr E Barnett:] Anyone short of a copy of P P G three, paragraph thirty three particularly?
[speaker001:] It's the one prepared for the submission....
[Mr E Barnett:] For those tha who are not to familiar with, the initials P P G, it stands for planning policy guidance, and there are a whole series of these guidance notes produced by the Department of the Environment for the er advice guidance of, well not only the local planning authorities but anyone else who is interested in the development business, and they are expressions of, I suppose government policy, er and their attitudes towards various aspects, whether it's countryside, housing,trans or transport, and they do pro provide a useful backcloth, in fact an extremely valuable backcloth to the way in which er this matter should be considered, erm I know from the submission which North Yorkshire County Council have used they would say that the fact they haven't had regard to all this er, but I would like to carry on the discussion against that background, and could you direct your thinking at this stage about the need for a new settlement in the light of the principles spelt out in P P G three and particularly paragraph thirty three. Now then, can we proceed to... Mr Brighton. Sorry, Mr Donson first?
[Mr Roy Donson:] Yes, thank you. Roy Donson, House Builders' Federation. I think I'd like to start by making a few general points, er and then er it will be a matter for for others to to be somewhat more specific, I I I think I can say that the issue of a new settlement of a new settlement in Greater York is is a fairly unique situation, because we have agreement between the development industry and the County Council, and that's something of a rarity, but also we have mild support from the Department of the Environment, and as Mr Davis has already said, that is backed by public support. I think it should be remembered that that public support actually was against a requirement of one thousand nine hundred dwellings, which is not quite the proposal being put forward by the County at the moment, but it is clear that there seems to me n not to be any public or great strength of public objection to the sort of proposals that are now before you in this enquiry, and it also seems to me that the reasons behind erm that that public support are essentially because it meets the first requirement of paragraph P P G thirty three, that the alternative expansion of existing towns or villages will represent a less satisfactory method of providing land for new housing that is needed, I think that is the essence of the public support, and so first of I think you can say that that's that means that first criteria, and certainly it seems to meet the second automatically because it an expression of public preference. From the Federation's point of view, er I have substantially difficult, a difficulty, in guiding you as to where the new settlement ought to be, because in effect I would be choosing between members, and that is a certain route to my unemployment, if I were to do that, and I don't wish to be unemployed. Therefore I am not able to suggest to you, and haven't been able to in my evidence which district even a new settlement er ought to go in, but I have to say that if it were part of your deliberations that you should choose a particular district, er then it is not part of my submission that you should not choose a particular district, but my bottom line is that the policy wording should at least ensure that there is commitment to a new settlement and it is inescapable on behalf of the district planning authorities, the last thing that we would want is the possibility of going round the districts, and the last one to produce a district wide plan is the one that has to get the new settlement, that seems to be a gen, fairly unsatisfactory way of proceeding, and each one should have to consider that as part of their certification process. If I can then turn to er some of the issues that were w w w were were raised this morning, York and others, and other other others in their submission laid great store on P P G thirteen. Can I remind you that it is a draft, and it is a consultation draft, it is not Government policy. And ministerial statements have actually indicated that it's not likely to appear, as a final version, until next year at the earliest, and so it would seem to me that there's a great deal of thought to be gone into the precise wording of that P P G yet, and to rely on quotes from it wou is, is, is at best er, misleading, and I think we ought to bear in mind something that Mr Curtis mentioned this morning, that in fact the change that happened between draft P P G three and the final version, it is quite possible that the final version of P P G thirteen could be substantially different from the
[Miss D Whitaker:] Can I, can I interrupt at that stage
[Mr Roy Donson:] .
[Miss D Whitaker:] and say, do you find nothing of P P G draft revision in P P G twelve?
[Mr Roy Donson:] Yes I do find that there's a general thread,an an an and and one would expect that, what I'm what I'm guarding against is taking too much notice of precise quotes from from from P P G thirteen. I think also we ought to be guarded about too much detailed discussion of travel distances, we are talking here at most of travel distances of between six and ten miles, in keeping with the policy, erm it seems to me that erm if we we spend too much time on trying to determine whether six or ten miles distant, is is there any great significance in terms of the global environment it would be at least an unproved case, one way or the other, but also there seems to me to be a clear conflict in those who are trying to say that the new settlement proposal falls because not large enough of a site is being proposed, one way and another. It would seem to me that if you've got to prove a case that there that it is the place of last resort, and that place of last resort has got to be at least five thousand dwellings, you are in a place where there is absolute massive growth of demand, and improbably no one has been able to meet a five year supply of housing land, if you are to meet it in the term, if y if those are the criteria to meeting the terms of th of this sort of plan, and in fact what I would submit is that a new settlement solution is very much a part and parcel of a long term solution, and that's where essentially the County strategy is quite right in proposing a new settlement in the context of the greenbelt, because also greenbelt is a long term solution. We've got to look at it in those terms, and so it is not necessary in my submission for anyone to prove at the moment there is at least five thousand dwellings short, erm that that is something which ought to be considered over a much longer time period. I think that what we have to decide today, or one of the things that needs to be decided is, is the new settlement in the longer term a sensible answer given that all the all the various considerations, and that erm arguing about residual numbers, here or there has to be taken in the much longer context, I think that's what all I would like the to say at the moment on on new settlement erm because of the situation I am in of not being able to er say too much in detail about it, I shan't be making very many contributions to to this particular debate.
[Miss D Whitaker:] Can I come back Mr Donson, or will that, and I take it, alright, I understand the point you are making about the long term solution and size, but if the panel were to be persuaded that to be a viable solution the settlement had, in the end, and I'm not going to define where the end is, almost certainly beyond two thousand and six, that the settlement would need to be of the order of five thousand dwellings. Do you consider it important that we take that into account now, not least because of the, although it's well beyond the plan in its entirety, where the new settlement might go, and its its acceptability in environmental terms, depends in part on how big it is, there may be some places which could easily take fifteen hundred dwellings, but could not take five thousand?
[Mr Roy Donson:] That seems to me to be a consideration which may be able to address in general terms by yourselves, but depends very much on the individual proposals, and and erm is is a matter of detail of the individual proposals, I'm sure that you don't want presented here the the fine detail of of individual proposals
[Miss D Whitaker:] Indeed not.
[Mr Roy Donson:] but it, but it maybe, it it would seem to me if that is a consideration of yours, that might be something that you reflect upon in y in your report, but it is it is not a necessary er requirement that, er that be part and parcel of this particular E I P.
[Miss D Whitaker:] Thank you.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr Brighton.
[Mr Paul Brighton:] [cough] Paul Brighton, Barton Willmore Planning Partnership. Can I say first of all that er I support the general approach which has been adopted by Yorkshire County Council and the the other local authorities in the Greater York area, on the way in which they've formulated their proposals for the York greenbelt after a fairly long erm and exhausting process, the question to which I want to address my comments first of all is whether the new settlement is an appropriate and justified planning response, and what I would like to do if I may is look at some of the reasons that have been raised erm in objection to the new settlement as a strategy, erm these issues have been raised by Hambledon District, York City Council, the C P R E, Montague Evans, in their written submissions to the examination of the. First of all, erm, if we c could, erm, the question of need. The first element of need is erm the various estimates of commitments of potential land, erm and the argument is, erm, that the additional requirement can actually be met within the inner area, now we covered that at some length this morning, and refer to what we've had said on that in a bit, I don't propose to repeat it. Likewise, part of the argument also revolves around possibility that in additional land within the inner greenbelt boundary, and again you've heard our argument on that this morning, and I don't propose to to repeat that. A new point that I would make, however, in many of those arguments which relate to the impossible, or alleged availability of additional windfall sites, and land on the inner greenbelt boundary, but I think the analysis which is er carried out is a simplistic one, because it solely relates to residential land requirements, there is no erm attempt to erm bring into the equation whether there is land available for the related employment necessary for that additional residential development, whether there is land available for schools, shops, and Mr Davis's recreation uses, and so on, and all those will very considerably increase the amount of land required to be released to support residential development, wherever it is located, and that is something which I believe has not been properly taken into account. The second major issue which I believe had been used against the new settlement as a an appropriate Greater York area, is that it's inconsistent with erm current recent central government planning advice, and basically the argument is that the proposals for the new settlement are contrary to er planning policy guidance notes three and twelve, and draft er P P G thirteen, if I can deal with P P G thirteen first of all, and the observation of Mr Curtis that the new settlement is a last resort, erm now I could find no reference to that at all erm in P P G three, or even a sentiment that at planning policy er that a new settlement should be regarded erm as a policy of last resort. My believe is what P P G is inviting local authorities to do is be cautious in proposing them, they should not be regarded as a first option, or an easy option, they should be cautious in proposing them. Special circumstances are required to justify the er proposing the new settlement through the local plan structure planning process, and I believe that is exactly what has occurred over the last five years, and if I could just quickly run through paragraph thirty three of P P G three, and the your invitation for us to comment on the criteria set out there, first of all the first element, the ex the alternative must be erm seen to be a less satisfactory method of providing land for the new housing that is needed, that is the essence of what has occurred in the process which the County Council has undertaken over the last couple of years, all of the policy options available have been examined in great detail, have been subject to public consultation, public participation,d I believe clear view was that there were erm constraints operating on York which meant that not all of that additional development accommodated in the adjacent to the existing er York city villages surrounding York. The second requirement is that it should be a clear expression of local preference afforded by the local planning authorities, my I think the fact that it has been promoted by the Greater York authorities, albeit some of them have erm taken a slightly different view of late, I think that is clear expression that the local, that the new settlement proposal does have a substantial local support. The third element and the fourth element erm I I think relate more to location questions to do with the new settlement, and I propose to deal with those under the legal heading of two C, the next item is that the proposal can be considered alongside policies of restraint, and that is exactly how the proposal for the new settlement has emerged, it is a response to the er proposed greenbelt around York city, and obviously we can put in the greenbelt that there is severe erm policies of restraint operating at er on on the terms of new development. Finally, the last consideration, again I believe that to be a location question which I propose to deal with under the heading two C. So the new settlement is one element of a comprehensive approach to development employments in Greater York. I would make the point that it has taken thirty five years for us to reach this point where we have comprehensive strategy for York, we have battled with er various greenbelt boundaries in the past, I think there has never been erm a total review development plan requirements for the Greater York area, no more of its implications on possible greenbelt boundaries, we now have that and the greenbelt local plan, Southern Ryedale local plans are being progressed on the basis of that strategy, and there are other plans in the pipeline. And I think the special character and position of the York as one of this country's most important historic, historic towns fully justifies the exceptional step of new settlement. The second planning policy guidance note which erm the new settlement tracked as was the policy guidance note number twelve, and I wonder if I can grapple for a moment with the S word, sustainable. It's a word which everyone is using and it's almost like confetti. I I'm not sure that we've had a very helpful description of what sustainable means, erm I suspect people use it in different ways and ther there is no er er common usage established of what it means here, there is no dictionary definition. I've scoured the the technical professional press to find out if there is some general statement which sums up what sustainability means, and the one which I've seen most commonly referred to, I think, and the government has used it in this way, is a requirement to ensure the needs of the present generation are met in a way which does not prejudice future generations, now I do not believe that a properly conceived and located new settlement is any less sustainable in the long term that other forms of urban growth, and by properly conceived I've got to say I believe that to mean properly balanced er form of development for the new settlement, and I think I would say that new settlements have usually been proposed because continued infilling, like the the normal forms of accommodating further development requirements, infill, and peripheral development, have been determined in York context not to be sustainable, the sorts of issues which arise as a result erm of additional development in or on the edge of York and the surrounding villages, problems of additional congestion, loss of green space in towns, loss of employment opportunities and so on. And finally I can just look at erm draft planning policy guidance thirteen, it is very easy to lift one or two sentences out of either the draft planning policy note, or indeed the Ecotech report which underpins it, erm, I think if a full reading is made of that, what comes across strongly in the research is that there is a very complex relationship between urban forms and transport patterns, and indeed erm I think the advice in P P G, er draft P P G thirteen is prefaced with a note that erm, transport issues are, will be erm, there are very few general principles, if any, and local er considerations will influence the er the importance of this iss issue very considerably, what I think draft P P G thirteen does invite us to do is to more overtly look the transportation implications of alternative settlement patterns, and that's all. And at the end of the day transport matters are only one consideration which need to be taken into account in considering alternative er locations, and it may not be the most important. And finally, if we can look at erm, I think the C P R E have raised this, that erm the new settlement i er would would be inconsistent with erm regional sub-regional planning strategy. First of all if one looks at the draft advice on the erm regional plan guidance prepared by the Yorkshire and Humberside local planning authorities, they in fact advocate new settlement as an appropriate circumstances, there is not a policy which says that they are not appropriate or are inconsistent with other policy objectives, and I note in that respect that the D O E as Mr Donson said, are mildly supportive of the new settlement in the Greater York area. There is some comment has been made that a new settlement to the South or the South West of York would in some way undermine the urban regeneration erm of Leeds City Council, now I find this a surprising comment given that though people who are making that comment are also at the same time advocating much increased development allocations to, for example, Harrogate district, the main centre for which is erm, nearer than most conceivable new settlement locations to the South and South West of York. In addition I think there's some inconsistency, because within Selby district, for example, a lot of development which has been advocated in the past and is likely to be allocated in the future is in places like Selby or Sherburn in Elmet, which again are much nearer to Leeds erm than potential new settlement sites to the South and South, South West of York, and yet objection has been raised to er that particular erm element in the planning strategy for Selby, and I I can't see the reason why a new settlement should be treated in any different way to any other form of development in that sense. Now you've also invited comments on er the question of whether one settlement is appropriate, and the size of the settlement do you want, would you like to take my comment
[Mr E Barnett:] Well I was trying to stick with the size as an expression of whether the concept is one that should be pursued, and whether that influences the pursuing of the concept, can we can we leave the, the number of settlements till, till later on? Right.
[Mr Paul Brighton:] I think erm there is some dispute as to erm what size the new settlement must be to become what's termed an integrated and balanced community, and given the importance of this issue, and it has been with us for the last three years, ever since the new settlement was first proposed, erm I find it very surprising that North Yorkshire County Council have not undertaken any work of their own on this subject area, and have relied instead on a a residual approach to to find the new settlement size, and I must say I find that very unsatisfactory, what North Yorkshire County Council are inviting you, erm, to accept is whatever size the residual for Greater York is, you know, has been in the past I should say, proposals from the public, from the private sector have come forward,an and the County Council have used those proposals as confirmation that the new settlement of that particular size was viable, it's a sort of self fulfilling prophecy, now I think that's unacceptable, what they haven't done is the second part of the technical exercise, which is to to look at the thresholds of the various services and facilities required in the new settlement. Now I am able to say that Barton Willmore has done this work, and it has submitted as part of our submission to the E I P, and in summary what I would say is that I believe that that work demonstrates that the new settlement has to be in the order of two thousand to two thousand five hundred dwellings, to begin to achieve the environmental objectives set for the new settlement, and also social objectives which would also be important to the residents of that new settlement. Now North Yorkshire County Council er I think in their statement look to erm to existing market towns to provide what little evidence they can up to justify fourteen hundred dwellings, er I think that's again a simplistic approach because by definition the market now can seal them up wider catchment area, many of them are some distance from York, and the settlements concerned provide a service base for a number of surrounding villages, and therefore the actual specialities and services found within that particular settlement are greater than one would achieve if it did not have a large catchment area. But finally, I would like to make one comment about the er the residual approach used to define the new settlement size. I think there is a tendency erm for local authority planners to to have horizons set by the end date of the current plan period, and work, try and work in that, sort of around the real world I think, where nothing happens, or nothing is conceivable, beyond that time period, erm, this particular approach, er does not work in the case of new settlements, there is no need when having established your design size for a new settlement that it necessarily all has to be built within current plan period, and I think this sort of approach is recognized in Cambridgeshire where, in case of the A forty five new settlement, a view was taken at an early stage that a new settlement of three thousand dwellings was needed to meet long term development needs in Cambridgeshire, an area where the planning issues and problems where very similar to those of York, and the approved structure plan in policy proposed that new settlement to be designated as three thousand, of which two thousand portion would be built within the current plan period, so it seems to me that the the question of size need not be an impediment to erm designation of a new settlement if the existing requirement and need are adjudged not to require the sort of new settlement size that we are creating. Thank you.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you very much. Mr Brighton, erm before I turn to another speaker, your comment about the location of a new settlement, and the likely effect it would have on the West Yorkshire conurbation, er I presume from what you've said is that effectively the new settlement, if you have one, its location should be such as to serve the needs of York and Greater York, and therefore the further it is away from the West Yorkshire conurbation, or the West side of North Yorkshire, the more likely it is to fulfil that function.
[Mr Paul Brighton:] I think that the new settlement erm should be as close to York erm city as can be achieved, the erm question of the detailed location er I think is a matter for erm discussion on the basis of the other planning policy guidance erm criteria which I haven't explored terms of the locational criteria, what I was seeking to do in my comments was erm to counter a point which has been made er by the C P R E which refers to new settlements as an engine of growth, now that's not the purpose of this new settlement, it is a response to the needs of meeting Greater York, and I don't see any reason why that's less likely to be achieved if it's South South West of York, than anywhere else around the circumference of York.
[Miss D Whitaker:] Given that planning cannot dictate that people live near to where they work, I'm not sure I've yet grasped why it is that the need to Greater York need to be met near to York,the these needs to rise from a complex pattern of people moving in and people moving out, individual decisions as to where people live in relation to where they work, what's the magic of having the new settlement near to York? And perhaps this is this goes to a wider point of what's the magic of the definition of Greater York area? That not just a question to yourself Mr Brighton, others may wish to comment later.
[Mr Paul Brighton:] May I answer first? Paul Paul Brighton, Barton Willmore. I think it is erm Greater York that has been seen as an area with special problems because of its er historic character, erm which we spent many hours debating at the York greenbelt local plan inquiry, and I think most participants there accepted that the er what was being protected was not just the historic core, but also the setting of York and its surrounding ring of villages, and the way which it is proposed to protect that setting and character is by a greenbelt, now it follows that if you are imposing extremely severe restrictions on new development in an area around a settlement, then you have to meet the legitimate development needs for that settlement in another location, the further away that new settlement or other policy response is located it seems to me the less likely it is to meet the er needs of that settlement, and that will give rise to erm, you know, additional pressures on the settlement you are proposing to protect and maybe those pressures could not be resisted, and I think that's why there is this requirement that erm the development which might otherwise be built on the edge of York, but which is not proposed to be so built because of the greenbelt needs to be located close, as close to York as is consistent with the original environmental objectives greenbelt objectives for the greenbelt.
[Miss D Whitaker:] Can I carry on throwing pebbles into the pool? Thank you. [tape change] Planning theory about the right size for towns is not good. Isn't there an argument which says if you're trying to protect York and its setting that the further you actually move the development away from it the greater the protection you afford it?
[Mr Paul Brighton:] I think erm there is a erm a size issue that enters into that particular consideration, erm clearly erm if you build a small new settlement very close to an existing large settlement, then the prospects for that being reasonably self contained are much reduced to that of a larger new settlement in the same location, and I would agree that the further in in general the further you move away from an existing centre then the likelihood is that that settlement will become more self contained.
[Mr E Barnett:] Can we,ca
[Mr Paul Brighton:] But, sorry.
[Mr E Barnett:] Go on.
[Mr Paul Brighton:] There is an additional aspect that erm we we must look also, I think, at the viability of the services and facilities, er, within the new settlement, if the new settlement is, for the sake of argument five hundred houses then my submission is that that really offers no long term viability for any facility or service, erm, clearly you might get a primary school if the new settlement size was of the order of eight hundred to a thousand dwellings, but you would not get any sizable retail element, and so however far that settlement was located from the main centre they would still become dependant on that centre, and that's why I think it's important to recognize that if you are to achieve the erm if you like the balance of requirements, of achieving erm a reasonable degree of self containment within the new settlement, but also meet the needs of York, it has to be a reasonable size, but located as close to York as possible...
[Miss D Whitaker:] [whispering] []
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you Mr Brighton, I'll leave my point until later. Mr Timothy, and then Mr Brook.
[Mr Christopher Timothy:] Paragraph thirty three
[Mr E Barnett:] Can you introduce yourself Mr Timothy, please?
[Mr Christopher Timothy:] Yes.
[Mr E Barnett:] This is for the sake of record, the record.
[Mr Christopher Timothy:] Right, this is Chr, Christopher Timothy from Wood Frampton. Starting off with paragraph thirty three of P P G three, [whispering] [], erm you'll see in my statement that I've actually in seeking to address point A dealt with each of the conditions that P P G three er refers to, for which a new settlement should be contemplated, and you will see that I've reached a conclusion that having regarded the unique circumstances of York, the Greater York new settlement does represent an appropriate and justified policy response, you'll se also see my statement, I've taken some comfort from the fact that the good practice guide that has been published by the department of the environment, has endorsed the approach that North Yorkshire County Council has taken towards the special circumstances of the Greater York area. I don't know if this means that the North Yorkshire structure plan now has the equivalent of an Egon Ronay recommendation. The the particular point that that I wish to pick up on though was from M Mr Curtis and his reference to erm the draft P P G thirteen, and whilst I'd say that the point of the H B F that it's only a draft publication at this stage, there's in my view been too mu much over reliance on the reference in there to self containment, you see if we look at that particular paragraph, two point one two, it actually says avoid the development of small new settlements which are not to, sorry, I'll start that again, avoid the development of small new settlements which are not be likely to be well served by public transport, or which will not be largely self contained. It's not an and situation, it's an ei it's an either or situation. So by implication if you c if the new settlement is capable of being well served by public transports, then that is se a a satisfactory situation. I take in my opinion the size, scale of settlement that is being pursued by erm North Yorkshire is of sufficient size, erm my experience erm are twelve fifty to fifteen hundred new settlement is sort of of a size that can sustain a reasonable balance of community facilities, I think in looking at the new village and in the context of P P G thirteen its highway implications, we see from table one of er Mr Curtis's supplementary statement that public transport, I E bus and train, in terms of journeys to work to the Greater York area amounts to about eight percent of all journeys made, now I think if we were to follow Mr Curtis's view through and put all development on the periphery of York, if we put two hundred to the North, two hundred to the East, two hundred to the South and so on and so forth, the contribution that those, that new housing can make to improving the public transport system, will be very small, if you concentrate your developments in a new settlement, or or maybe two new settlements which is another point, erm you have a better opportunity to provide a public transport system which would not only serve that new village, but also settlements in the surroundings, and I think you will find that the percentage of people in the new village who are reliant on public transport as a means of getting to work is greater that what you find in the Greater York area at the present time.
[Mr E Barnett:] Aha. Any other comment?
[Mr Christopher Timothy:] The only other comment I had in terms of the scale of settlement, which I think is just touching upon the next point, is that, I mean depending on the conclusions you reach as to the the amount of housing to be provided for in a new settlement, I take the point that Mr Brighton made that you've got to have a longer term perspective I think that he f that in the ten year period ninety six to two thousand and six that the new settlements to be brought forward during, erm I think it's really unrealistic to achieve more than twelve fifty, fourteen hundred houses in that period, if you say reach a conclusion there should be two thousand houses in that period in a new settlement, there might be some benefit in having two settlements, each of a capacity of say twelve fifty,f for erm twelve fifty to fifteen hundred that can have capacity for the next plan period, and in other words to assist in meeting the constraints that exist on York that are likely to exist into the future.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mhm. Thank you. Mr Brook, and then Mr Sexton.
[Mr Clive Brook:] Thank you sir. Clive Brook, Clive Brook associates. I think it would be appropriate to very briefly sir preface erm not by name obviously, who I represent, the interests I represent, because otherwise my comments may be misconstrued erm by certain parties who know me well, I represent certain peripheral land owner and developer interests around York, I also represent a developer who is proposing a n new village circa fifteen hundred dwellings in the Leeds metropolitan district er to the East of Wetherby, that is relevant when I come to the location and a migration aspects, er I would preface the rest of my comments by saying I consider it is vitally important, sir, that this enquiry takes a sub-regional view, this is why my colleague from Leeds City Council I'm sure's been invited, it's why the Department of the Environment Regional Office are here, very important indeed. In terms of Greater York and its th the York greenbelt I think it's true to say that er some time ago when David Kaiserman of Manchester did research on greenbelts he came to the view, or he came up with the conclusions from his questionnaires that he sent round, and that study was done, must be ten, fifteen years ago or more, that greenbelts should endure unchanged for at least twenty years, and probably in excess of thirty, and those were the responses of county planning and other major planning authorities at that time, that view if anything has hardened, the public view would be way beyond thirty years. For a city the nature of York it is vital, in my view, that public confidence in the greenbelt it's got to endure for beyond thirty years, that is the case I would share the views to some extent of the York City in that, and which I I certainly read into ma'am, your, two of your questions, what happens beyond two thousand and six? The responses I heard to that question were most unsatisfactory, the County Council's response was, ah, well we'll have to get together again with the group of authorities, now if you look back over how long it has taken to produce this particular strategy that's exceedingly worrying, that means they'll have to get together again, even if it takes half the time or a third of the time, they'll have to get together again towards nineteen ninety seven ninety eight to be considering the strategy post two thousand and six. I put it to you that this proposal has to be considered, any new settlement proposal has to be considered within the light of a post two thousand and six strategy, in that light this new settlement proposal will not, at around fourteen hundred, satisfy the situation. If you then say, ah well it might expand to double that number or to five thousand, as was postulated, that then begs an even larger question, because in my submission you would then go back and revisit the alternatives of, for example, should you expand Tadcaster, which has not the best facilities in its town centre, er to quote but one example of er viability and sustainability of towns. You would look at Tadcaster versus a settlement of four five thousand in the Greater York area. It is a so it's a complex set of interrelationships we're looking at er on a sub-regional basis, I do believe that there is capacity, some capacity around the inner area of York, and to what extent the greenbelt enquiry er inspector will retain what I and others and certainly York City Council would believe is sufficient capacity remains to be seen, and though similar pleas were made at that enquiry I think they have to be restated here. So my answer to the question A is, I am not against a new settlement, of the right scale in the right location, but it is not a panacea, it is not an answer to all the questions, now it's being offered in terms of a balanced strategy, I say that balanced strategy as put forward does not work, certainly beyond two thousand and six, and may grind to a halt well before two thousand and six if rates of development proceed er as they have done in certain years in the past, so it's very important to look at that, can we just revisit the public acceptance of the new settlement, of course the public have accepted it and welcomed it, it has certain attractions, I support those attractions, however it's easy for the public to accept that when measured against certain sites specific proposals that were put to them when they did not know where the new settlement would be, and still do not know, when new settlement locations are put forward it will be quite a different scenario. The question of er P P G thirteen and transportation I think is vitally important, York will come into the position that Chester er where I was just at a transportation enquiry recently, it's a very similar sort of city, it's not quite the same as Cambridge, where Cambridge is leaping ahead on quite, some would say draconian transportation measures, York in the forceable future will have to look at specialist transportation measures, that's important in terms of the planning policy guidance that is out, it's also in the white paper, it may be in draft P P G thirteen, it's also in I think it's P P G twenty two, renewable energy, that we should now be looking at developments which is closer to work, that links then to the question of sustainability and viability of a new settlement, I am not aware, and and I put it guardedly in those terms, of any significant employment existing or proposed in any of the new settlement proposals. I believe it is very important to judge a new settlement in terms of viability and sustainability on the availability of some significant element of jobs, of course it will never be self contained, erm but that is a very important factor, I don't see that in the list of criteria. So I'm not opposed to a new settlement, but let's have a very sensible approach to the question of sustainability and viability, journeys to work, er okay six to ten miles is not too much, but we can do better than that. I think I'll reserve my other comments, sir, when we get on to some of the later points.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you very much. Mr Sexton.
[Mr Anthony (tony) Sexton:] Tony Sexton, Connell. Er my start point is P P G twelve, which in er paragraph six point four sets out the reconciliation of the er development, er economic, social, and environmental er priorities in preceding two strategies for a structure plan. These development strategies should seek to preserve an acceptable balance of the various priorities, now in my position statement I set out the role and general advantages of new settlements as part of a development strategy in satisfying housing and employment needs of an area. In particular I think that the new settlement strategy proposed in the structure plan is of particular relevance er to the needs of Greater York, focused as it is on the historic city. Given the lack of a capacity within the city and in the settlements surrounding to absorb significant elements of major development it seems to me that it is inevitable that green fields er will have to be taken to satisfy the future development needs. The choice therefore arises between peripheral development of the urban area and the villages surrounding or alternatively the new settlement itself, the effect of peripheral development on the city has already been discussed, and I support those who consider that it would be harmful to the character and indeed to the setting of York. Equally to, I consider that significant peripheral development of the villages would be harmful to their character as well. It therefore follows that in my view, that it is consonant with the requirements of P P G three, particularly paragraph thirty three, that a new settlement should be part of the housing and employment strategy of the Greater York area, that it does not conflict, in my view, with the consultation draft of P P G thirteen which really embodies much of what has already been said in P P G three and twelve with regard to travel issues. Dealing with one or two specific points that have been raised, particularly with regard to size, in my view the balanced community which can be envisaged within a new settlement will provide for housing, employment, community services, and recreational opportunities, it will not simply be a peripheral housing estate transferred to the open countryside, in my submission I have already stated that I do believe a new settlement of up to fourteen hundred dwellings should indeed be viable, and commercially attractive to the development industry. I think a settlement of this size would be compatible with the general pattern of village development that exists in the York area, if a new settlement were significantly larger than this pattern I think there would be a high degree of risk of coalescence with the existing er communities, and would certainly threaten their identity. The other point I would make is the further that the new settlement is from York itself, then the greater would be the dependency upon the motor car, this has been born out by the paper that has been submitted by York City Council in table one where one can see that within the urban area within the O R R the travel to work by car is forty six point four percent, travel to work in the Greater York area at the moment is sixty seven point five percent, further than that I do believe it would be even greater. As there is indeed a need to reduce car dependency it therefore follows that the nearer to York that the new settlement is then the greater the benefits could result, equally to, the further that the new settlement is from York then I think the less it will have an effect in reducing the pressures for development upon York. I think those pressures will still be there and that another solution will have to be found, albeit in the middle term to reduce the further demands, continuing demands for peripheral expansion of the city. Thank you, Sir.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you. Mr Jewitt. Sorry.
[Miss D Whitaker:] Sorry.
[Mr E Barnett:] Sorry.
[Miss D Whitaker:] A couple of questions if I may please Mr Sexton. First of all you started off with a reference to P P G twelve, and I fear my pen wasn't fast enough to note down the paragraph number, perhaps you could remind me?
[Mr Anthony (tony) Sexton:] Er, certainly, Senior Inspector, erm paragraphs six point four, and continuing into six point five.
[Miss D Whitaker:] Thank you. Second point, erm, you argue that a settlement of more than, say, fifteen hundred dwellings would increase the risk of coalescence with existing settlements, but surely that depends on where it is, doesn't it?
[Mr Anthony (tony) Sexton:] Yes, I readily accept that, er my general proposition is in er connection with the settlement pattern of York, and it is necessary clearly to have er careful regard to that existing settlement pattern, erm if I may refer to the helpful plan that has in fact been produced, I believe by the County Council, it is in fact an appendix to B two zero zero four, er this plan does actually indicate the general extent of the settlements outside the outer ring road of York. Clearly the settlement pattern at the moment does vary, many of the settlements are linear in form, many others are nucleate. But they are fairly thickly spread, fairly closely to each other, it is my view that, quite frankly, the existing settlements should be protected to the extent of no new settlement being within w one mile of the vi existing village centre. If one took that as a parameter, and applied that to the existing settlement pattern, there is indeed a high degree of risk of coalescence if in fact a new settlement were of a significant significantly larger than fourteen hundred dwellings.
[Miss D Whitaker:] I understand, thank you.
[Mr Michael Jewitt:] Michael Jewitt. Michael Jewitt, Hambledon District Council. I think at the outset I need to erm clarify Hambledon's position, erm Hambledon's position is that it objects erm to the new settlement on the basis that it's not needed and cannot be justified, and I wouldn't wish erm for the er Council's position to be interpreted as anything less than that. Turning to erm the reasons erm for the Council's erm objection with particular reference to er paragraph erm thirty three of P P G three, erm I think it's first of all, and it should be abundantly obvious to all present now that since the County Council emba and the Greater York authorities, embarked upon this strategy government guidance has changed, we believe erm government guidance now casts serious doubts erm on the erm new settlement strategy for Greater York. It's certainly true that government guidance is far more guarded erm in its support for new settlements erm the guidance has has of course been touched on but I would adem emphasize the dates of this guidance, er P P G three, housing, March nineteen ninety two, P P G twelve, development plans and regional planning guidance, February nineteen ninety two, and draft P P G thirteen, May nineteen ninety three, just looking briefly at P P G three, erm P P G, and I think it's fair to say that P P G three takes up far less welcoming stance than did the previous erm P P G erm it recognizes that new settlements are controversial, and that the scope is likely to be limited. Hambledon District Council believes that insufficient regard has been payed erm to to these issues erm in the structure plan alteration, in paragraph thirty three the P P G sets down a list of criteria erm to which local authorities er should refer erm, I'll erm refer specifically to er to three of them and I and and comeback to them as I go through erm erm what I want to say, erm the first one I draw that I would draw the panel's attention to is erm that the alternative of the expansion of existing towns or villages should represent a less satisfactory method at providing the land for housing that is needed, and it's a rhetorical question really here, erm and w we would ask that erm if there hasn't been a comparative appraisal erm of the two options, and how could there be, there's no erm district or areas been identified, how can we be certain that one option is better than another under the terms of that er criterion, erm the oth second point we would draw the panel's attention is that the proposal is a clear expression of local preference supported by the local planning authorities, and again I would emphasize there that Hambledon District Council objects, and the third one is the option of a new settlement in preference to the alternative would result in positive environmental improvements, and I'll return to that erm briefly in relation to er to Hambledon, P P G twelve erm paragraph six one four that's been referred to it, includes a check list of issues against which areas in for new development in general er need to be er considered, with particular reference for reducing the need for travel, erm amongst these issues that the P P G asked the Councils to take into account erm are that development should make full and effective use of land within existing urban areas, that developments er should consider development patterns that are closely related to public transport net networks, and in relation to housing, and that housing is located in such a way as to minimize car use for journeys to work, school, and other local facilities, P P G thirteen, and I would expect erm I would agree with what Mr Donson has said here, is that it it's draft and obviously one has to put the appropriate weight on it, but erm this reinforces and expands upon erm established government policy, reducing the need for travel, erm I don't think it's necessary for me to go into er the quotes in detail, I think that those have been er been touched on, erm, however, I would say erm that Hambledon District Council believes that the advice in draft P P G thirteen is much less supportive of new settlements, it suggests that greater weight must be given to the environmental implications of the additional traffic generated by new settlements erm this is, erm we believe, particularly important in view of the fact that a new settlement for York is unlikely to be self contained, and by its nature many of the residents will still look to York for essential services, social links, and employment, turning to the residual requirement, erm we have a concern over this, erm clearly a new settlement is intended to mop up any residual requirement which the er policy sets at fourteen hundred dwellings, we've heard evidence from York today that er the city can accommodate erm more erm houses than was originally envisaged, which brings the residual requirement to erm about the minimum size specified by the County Council as being erm about the right level erm to make a s a new settlement self supporting, however, we would point out that there is still the possibility of erm further peripheral development around York, the greenbelt local plan and Southern Ryedale local plan er have not yet been statutory adopted, the inspector hasn't reported on those, we don't know what he's going to say about sites er which were at issue, or on the need for flexibility between the inner erm boundary of the greenbelt and the city, irrespective of course of what the inspector says, erm being not yet statutory adopted the County and Ryedale will still have the opportunity to consider, reconsider there policies there, but putting that aside for the present, erm even if it is established that er the requirement for nine thousand seven hundred houses erm can't a occupied by er can be accommodated by er peripheral development, erm this doesn't it doesn't necessarily follow that the answer has to be a new settlement, we heard yesterday in erm great detail that erm environmental considerations have justified a reduction in the rate of development in other districts, erm in the county, I would point out that a relatively modest reduction erm in the inward migration to Ryedale, Selby, and York, could mop up the residual requirement, if one looks at erm the reasons for the greenbelt it is perhaps surprising that given the importance attached to maintaining its historic form and character that this is not an issue erm that's been considered. Looking specifically at our concerns with regard to erm Hambledon, erm in Hambledon the area search would erm extend to about eighty two kilometres, that's square kilometres, erm and contain six, this contains six villages, er with populations ranging from a hundred and fourteen to nine hundred and seventy one, erm proposed new settlement of fourteen hundred hou erm dwellings, er would be four times erm greater than the largest settlement in this area, Easingwold is the nearest small town, that's about the equivalent erm equivalent size in terms of number of dwellings, erm we believe that it would er dominate the existing settlement pattern in the area, and would introduce erm a dislocation erm into er a settlement pattern. And we think that it would be an excessive size er for that particular locality, and it wouldn't really fit in erm with er the path of the settlement pattern. We also have concerns about how it could erm fit in to er the countryside erm of the area er with particular reference to erm paragraph thirty three of P P G three which states that erm the net effect of any new settlement will be to enhance the environmental cause only modest environmental impact, the area in Hambledon, as Mr Wincup outlined yesterday erm is occupied essentially by the vale of York, it's an essentially flat and rolling landscape, er the intensification of agriculture's produced a very open landscape erm in that area erm there are few erm landscape elements to reduce into visibility, erm there are no significant areas of derelict land which could be, which would be reclaimed or enhanced erm by a new settlement, erm and the Council believes that it would be very difficult to assimilate a new settlement into this landscape, and it would be er visible over extensive areas, to touch on erm the point raised by erm the panel about self sufficiency and self containment erm I think it's recognized in the explanatory memorandum, erm to policy H two that a new settlement will need to maintain social and economic links with a city, erm perhaps from some, this statement is explicit that erm York will continue to exert considerable influence in terms of employment, social, and community links, erm and it's unlikely that facilities which have provided a new settlement will divert much, if an, if er any, erm of this er demand for travel. We think that the er residents of a new settlement will still look to York as the natural centre for employment, for er provision of most employment, retailing and entertainment, and if you compare it with something like er Easingwold, erm which is of a similar size, erm this has achieved a degree a degree of self containment and balance, but this has occurred through erm a long period of development and a gradual growth of erm social linkages and economic linkages, however, even with such erm a gradual growth erm it's not got a high degree of self containment, erm recent developments in er transport and changes in lifestyle have reduced this even further, and it's difficult to believe that er a proposal, such as a new settlement er which is explicitly intended to cater for the development needs of York, located only ten miles from York can achieve the same level of self containment. That's all I have to say.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you. Er y your use of the phrase self containment leads me to ask the question, which is that, well in my book it doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as an integrated and balanced community, but I'll put Mr Davis on notice to define what is meant by those adjectives. Er, Mr Girt, can we have erm a Leeds view?
[Mr Girt:] Yes, I'd like to come back er to Mr Brighton on the question of regeneration in West Yorkshire, and er settlement South West of York, some people here today would not have heard the views of Leeds and Bradford on the H one discussions yet, about er why we are objecting to the restraints in three North Yorkshire districts, Harrogate, Craven, and er to less extent perhaps, Hambledon, on migration levels, erm we we argued there
[speaker001:] [crackling microphone] Sorry.
[Mr Girt:] we argued there that erm scale of migration was not necessary to to be contained within Leeds and Bradford, to promote regeneration because we're s we're now, we have now exhausted all our brown field sites to the extent that we've had to take land out of our greenbelt, but there we were looking at something in the order of four thousand dwellings in three dris districts, spread over fifteen years, and we might reasonably assume that they'd come forward in a dispersed manner on a site by site basis er and be relatively small scale, certainly we would be looking at the local plans which flow from this alteration to make sure that will be the case, now a new settlement's a completely different animal, you would have to come forward quickly otherwise it would not be regarded as a success, it would it would need wide publicity, perhaps across the whole region, maybe even beyond, it would be a a major attraction to anybody thinking of moving house er from Leeds to a a location which would be accessible to them to retain their employment in Leeds, so I think we were talking about two different things entirely, more than that Mr Brighton's su suggested that fifteen hundred would not be an adequate scale, it would have to be, I think two thousand five hundred was his figure, er Mr Timothy's suggested th the same sort of thinking, and Mr Brook to, that the the settlement would have to get bigger, erm which only compounds our problem, any any settlement which grew larger and larger and inevitably would contain more employment as well as housing would become more of a threat to the regeneration of Leeds and, perhaps to a lesser extent Bradford, and it's on
[Mr E Barnett:] [cough] Thank you. I'm conscious of the time, and we may like to have a break for tea, but there are also three people who wish to contribute to the discussion. Would you like to have a break for tea now? I mean, I I ask that in the the sense that ha are your contributions going to fairly lengthy?
[speaker001:] And mine.
[Mr E Barnett:] Right, can we take Mr Cunnane and then Mr Thomas, and we'll do you after tea.
[speaker001:] Joe Cunnane, er there are five points which I want to make. First one, er relates to the point made by the Barton Willmore representative, that no account has been taken of additional land that would be needed er for the settlement, for shops, er community facilities, and other infrastructure, er and of course that land is not available, well [cough] in fact the opposite is the case if the new settlement is not provided, because the infrastructure is available within York city, and the York city document er A eight double O nine, paragraph six, makes it very clear that the city is capable of accommodating the needs within its city boundaries where that fr infrastructure is available, er to that extent there is a further argument against the settlement, and that is that the settlement would be duplicating the provision of resources outside of the city, where those resources can actually accommodate it within the city. Second point is that Barton Willmore say again a settlement of two and a half thousand is needed in order to be viable, well a settlement of two and a half thousand cannot possibly be justified under the statistics that we have heard to date, and it is ni it is noteworthy that Barton Willmore representative did not actually promote a need argument, therefore the settlement at two and a half thousand is n well the settlement at two and a half thousand is not necessary, and anything less than that is unsustainable, so therefore in my in my view that is a a further reason why it should not be contemplated as a solution. My third point is coming back to Chairman your point about the paragraph, the criterion paragraph of thirty three of P P G three, and the settlement in my view fails the first the first test, since the very city which it is supposed to relieve says that the need can be met, and I quote, within and on the edge of the urban area and villages. My fourth point is that again dealing with paragraph thirty three, it fails the second test where it should be a clear, and I would like to underline clear, expression of local preference supported by the local planning authorities, now Mr Jewitt has already made the point so I'll be very se very brief about this, but I my clients, Simon Smith's brewery in Tadcaster, two off fifty seven
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you. Mr Thomas. Yes, Richard Thomas, Montague Evans. Er most of my points have actually dried up now, sir, in view of what Mr Cunnane has said, and also Mr Jewitt, erm I do actually, I would try to emphasize a point that the people who are proposing new settlements in this location have judiciously avoided the question of need this afternoon, well I think we we almost came to the point this morning that the shortfall was nine hundred and reducing almost on a month by month basis, er one or two quick points I would like to pick up, er in view of the erm small nature or the shortfall in housing supply that we see over the next fifteen years, I cannot accept that to avoid the new settlement option would be prejudicial to greenbelt objectives, erm the housing land supply allocations are almost there, there are plans to run through which will un almost inevitably allocate additional sites inside the inner edge of the greenbelt boundary and outside the outer edge of the greenbelt boundary, but both within Greater York, which are bound to assist in making up the shortfall of provision, and probably, if I suspect rightly, would actually exceed it, erm erm I agree with Mr Cunnane on the question of the alternative expansion of existing towns or settlements, the same point really, we're almost there anyway, the op that option is already there, it's not that it might be there, it is it is there at the moment, er it's not a clear expression of local preference, and I would also point out the option of the environmental improvements under the P P G criteria you asked us to look at, erm whether it's a thousand houses, two thousand, two and a half thousand, whether it has a bowling alley, or a ten pin bowling alley, and a B and Q, and a, probably a Tesco as well, this form of development will not sit comfortably in open countryside, almost, wherever it's put within the Greater York area, I defy anyone to produce a site where one can satisfactorily put er such a massive form of urban development and suggest it's a positive environmental improvement. Another point which hasn't been taken up, despite us being invited to is why is the Greater York area the size that it is, and this is a point that the Senior Inspector raised, er in other towns and cities, I'm thinking particularly of Exeter for example, the districts have looked at supplying their city based land supply problems on a journey to work area, now that area would be significantly greater than we're looking at here, and it seems to me in this location er where we see a potential abundance of supply beyond the strict confines of the Greater York area is a very apposite question to ask, why is the Greater York area the area that it is? Why are we relying so heavily on this arbitrary boundary? Because the result of what we're trying to achieve, particularly if one goes for the new settle settlement option, is to squeeze, as we said this morning, a gallon into a pint pot, and it it would be interesting to hear from the County why the Greater York boundary is what it is. Thank you. Thank you very much. [cough] Well, Mr Davis can mull over that while he's having his cup of tea, and then we'll come straight to Mr Sedgewick and Mr Donson after tea. Can we reconvene at twenty to four, please? [tape change]
[Miss D Whitaker:] Yes, could I erm, I just want to take up some points raised by the panel. Erm, indeed the first one was why should, why should the new settlement be located close to Greater York, I think the main main ans the answer to that is of course that York is the main centre in population, and employment in the county, by far. It's it's also the main area of housing demand, it's also the main area where employers want to locate around around North Yorkshire, and I think most importantly, if its development needs are not met, these can won't be satisfactorily diverted elsewhere, they will continue unresolved which would be continual pressure on the edge of the urban area, and on on the greenbelt, and if that holds the effect would of course be that the tight greenbelt would mean that economic growth in the county would be frustrated, because York is the main centre where employment growth is concentrated, and I would think, I would consider that that solution of a tight greenbelt plus not making sufficient provision for development needs elsewhere in York would be contrary to P P G three paragraph three, which I'm sure you're aware of. Well if I could just read read that, a well planned strategy for hou for land, for hous, sorry a well planned strategy for land for housing which ensures that housing is available in the areas where jobs are being being created can make a valuable contri contribution to national prosperity and economic growth, so I say I don't think we would have that erm valuable contribution if the new settlement were located away from Greater York. Now in terms of the cr the need for development, I'm sure the panel will have read all the evidence which has been put in about the long history of the varying impact studies o on development on around Greater York, and those date back of course to the February eighty nine report which I I think you'll have seen copies of. Now my my conclusion from that, and I think is a conclusion which has been supported by the public on con during the consultation exercise on the Greater York study, was that peripheral development around Greater York would have an undue impact on the historic character of the city, and that of course is the fundamental, the protection of which is of course a fundamental aim of planning around Greater York. And I think that the alternative of the new settlement is by far the best solution, provided it is mixed with some peripheral development, one can't go into a position where there is all peripheral development or all new settlement, it has to be in perfect balance, because some needs cannot of course be met by the new settlement. In terms of closeness to York, I take the general review view and I support the County Council that it is generally better if the new settlement is located closer, close to York, because that under proviso that it is well located for public and private transport. If further away the new settlement would be from York, the less likely it would be to meet the needs of Greater York, more likely to meet the needs of other areas, such as Leeds. I think the worst of all locations would be a, would be one where the new settlement would be catering for the needs of Leeds, if it were were located along the A sixty four corridor, South South South of York. In terms of sustainability, we we have done underdone undertaken the same exercise which Barton Willmore have done, and looked at all the various sources, I mean from there you should be including those published by the rural development corporation, commission I should say. We come to the different conclusion, and we we think that a settlement between, from those sources, that a new settlement between fifteen hundred to two thousand could support a reasonable range of services, and we when we look at Barton Willmore's evidence we don't see the support for their conclusion, if one reads each individual service, one fi comes to the view that a new settlement between fifteen hundred two thousand would support a reasonable range of services. Now in terms of whether it should be five thousand plus, that of course is a matter of whether there is demand, now my my conclusion, from my fairly extensive knowledge of Greater York, is that you just could not fit a new settlement that size satisfactorily into the settlement and landscape pattern of Greater York, or its immediate surrounds, I just cannot identify a location where that could be where where the roads, the public transport, the landscape, or indeed the agricultural land quality, from now onto five an area, suitably large for that type of what would be a a new town. And could I just say that I think that the issue of sustainability does also touch upon the need for the new settlement to be be located on a public transport corridor, preferably an existing public transport corridor, and I think again that argument for for s for somewhere where a rail link, preferably, could be provided, and that of course would tend to support all those factors tend to support a location on the Northern side of York rather than the Southern side of York. That's it. [LAUGHTER] Can I pursue one point you've made, Mr Courcier, you say there is nowhere in the York area where a settlement of say, five thousand Five thousand dwellings. dwellings could be accommodated, given that the world is not going to stop in two thousand and six. And an assumption, and it is only an assumption at this stage, that York has a tight greenbelt, by that time statutory. Isn't it a bit short sighted to th to plan to come up against what if you're right would be a brick wall. It won't be us at the next E I P, but aren't you inventing the same problem Well I for the next panel? I think there are two points there, firstly I think that the York greenbelt should not be drawn overly tightly, it should allow for some provision for peripheral post two thousand and six, because there will be inevitably demands arising in that period, which cannot be met in the new settlement, and I disagree with the County Council on their approach on that matter. would would also be wise for any new settlement which you chief specify, that any new settlement you may recommend should also include some provision for expansion land, and my point I think is that you could not divide a settlement as big as five thousand, I think it would be reasonable to say a new settlement make with a an eventual capacity of say three and a half thousand, that might be appropriate around Greater York. You couldn't find that could you? I think one could find something of that order. I think five thousand is just too large and if if there were a need post two thousand and six for a larger, for a for further development, and Tadcaster, two of the 7
[Mr E Barnett:] So are you saying then effectively that looking towards the post two thousand and six scenario, and bearing in mind that that review will not be let, will, is likely to take place at the most within the next five years?
[Miss D Whitaker:] Yes.
[Mr E Barnett:] Erm, then it may well be for the benefit of Greater York that you might be looking at more than one settlement?
[Miss D Whitaker:] Well certainly I don't think at this point there is a need for more than one settlement.
[Mr E Barnett:] No.
[Miss D Whitaker:] Mm, there may be a need post two thousand and six for a further settlement, we won't know until we see, we don't know the strategic policy context in which that decision will be taken, nor nor of course exactly what sort of demographic requirements may be arising in that period.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mhm.
[Miss D Whitaker:] Most certainly at this point I don't see any need for a second new settlement.
[Mr E Barnett:] No. Thank you. Mr Brighton.
[Mr Paul Brighton:] I just wanted er, Paul Brighton, Barton Willmore Planning Partnership. I just wanted to erm pick up on a couple of points that er people have made in the course of a and responses I think to my er opening statement.
[Miss D Whitaker:] I'm sorry, people can't hear you at the back.
[Mr Paul Brighton:] [crackling microphone] I'm sorry, I just wanted to make a couple of points in response to erm things that people have said in relation to my opening statement, erm Mr Brook er mentioned the fact that er none of the employe none of the new settlement proposals of which he was aware, erm included an employment element, erm I just wanted to to place on record the fact that our suggested reworking of policy H two does provide for an explicit land er amount of land for employment purposes, erm as part of the new settlement location, I wanted to say that because I, I'm not invited to appear on your employment day, and I do feel that this is an important component of the the H two strategy, and clearly that employment component will be drawn from the Greater York allocation, the second point, Mr Sexton erm I believe said that in his view you could not find a site for a larger new settlement er within the or outside the Greater York er greenbelt, erm which would not result in physical coalescence with the existing villages in the area, now I'm not sure whether he was referring to any particular size of larger new settlement, but I invite you to look at the er land range at one to fifty thousand er map of the area, and you will see that the area outside the greenbelt is characterized by erm a very rural area with sporadic villages, and my believe is that there are erm sites available within that area which could accommodate a larger new settlement, the planning point is of course the larger the new settlement becomes, I think the less that that the reduced number of sites you will have available to accommodate erm that proposal, because of its scale, and the third aspect I want to comment on Mr Cunnane and Mr Thomas erm said that Barton Willmore had not made a need argument for the new settlement, well if I'm not mistaken that's what we spent most of this morning discussing under policy H one, and I don't erm I don't wish, and I don't suppose that I'd be invited to repeat the comments made by Mr Grigson this morning, I don't think there's any need for that, but that establishes in our mind very clearly there is a need for a new settlement in the range of two thousand to two thousand five hundred dwellings, erm in the period up to two thousand and six, and I won't say anything more on that. Thank you.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes, I mean I I took your need figure to be on the basis of the suggested figure of twelve thousand seven hundred for the Greater York area.
[Mr Paul Brighton:] Thank you, correct.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr Whip. I'm not, I don't think you're a resident of one of these sporadic villages, but can we have, Flexton is it?
[speaker001:] Flaxton.
[Mr Roy Donson:] No, Flaxton Parish Council, George Whip. The views of Flaxton Parish Council are supported by Flaxton Village Trust. Most of my comment will be related to the methodology of selection of the site of any new settlement, and not to the question of need which we're now addressing ourselves to. But I don't think reference has been made to a document that is referred to in P P G one, namely the doc the white paper, This Common Inheritance, er D O E document, and in that there's a clear indication that this question of a new settlement erm should be considered, paragraph six point four eight reads, however well urban land is used, there will continue to be a need for building on greenfield sites, it is important that new housing on such sites is carefully placed to preserve the open countryside, and respects the quality of the landscape. Here again there are local choices to be made, one option is the creation of new villages or larger settlements which could offer opportunities for high quality design, and also relieve pressures on existing towns and villages. The government believes that this is an option which should be considered by planning authorities and local communities in the preparation of their plans. In my opinion that supports the line taken in the revised version of P P G three which I don't think dims the enthusiasm of central government for a new settlement consideration as compared with its predecessor, P P G three. The view of Flaxton is that the greenbelt should be kept tight round the urban area of York city, and it is because of that view that we think whether there is a need for a new settlement depends basically on the numbers game into which we cannot go.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mhm. Could we have a copy of that er quote from Common Inheritance? If you'd arrange with the er erm secretary later. Thank you. Er, Mr Wincup.
[Mr Paul Brighton:] Ken Wincup, D O E. I'm sure sir you're you're not expecting me to make a a major contribution to this particular debate, but I felt that your the, various comments have been made around the table which would make it exactly clear where the Department stands on this issue. As we say in our our paper, we use the phrase wildly supportive of the concept. those words were carefully chosen as as I'm sure sure you'd expect them to be. Our involvements st with this project started way back in nineteen eighty nine, went into a series of meetings which most recent I attended at the Greater York authorities, we learnt the full scale and extent of the housing land problems in the Greater York area, we of course have no part in the decisions which have been made by the Greater York authorities, nor in the plans they subsequently made for the York greenbelt, but clearly we remain closely interested in the outcome. We heard what Mr er Davis had to say this morning, and at at one point was very very important, we are expecting to be in possession of reports on the greenbelt local enquiry and your report er round about the same time, and indeed since they they are in control of proceedings thereafter they are in a position to make sure that they don't have to reach decisions on one until they are in possession of the other. In relation to the concept of a new settlement the Department very firmly has an open mind at a time, we've heard many statements drawing on the various P P G s, and from some of them you might have been excused for thinking that the Department had indeed turned it turned its back on the idea of a n new settlements, knowing that sort of situation we felt it appropriate before the start of this examination to sound out the residents of two Marscham Street
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Mr Paul Brighton:] which we did, and I'm pleased to say that they endorsed that that general position, in other words their not going to come to a conclusion whether or not they should take any part in the proceedings, whether they should intervene or seek to stop the project until much later in the day. We see we see this forum as very much the right sort of forum for either making or breaking the case for a new settlement, the one thing I do have to say, however, is that the Department wants to see this particular issue settled in the context of the alteration, and full significance of that isn't immediately apparent, it, what we don't want to see is what was envisaged in the H B F statement, where they thought that we might end up with a decision to have a new settlement in principle and then leave it open to the local plans, all four of them around the city, to then explore the possible alternative locations. That's not how we see it, sir, we see the the issue of the location of the new settlement as very much a strategic issue which should be settled in the structure plan context, and not left to local plans to decide. The words are there in in the bi in the relevant P P G but I'm sure you're you're familiar with them, er this is very much an issue which falls to be decided at the strategic level. That does of course pose one or two problems, as far as the locational aspects of the new settlement are concerned, as I understand it neither the County Council nor the relevant District Councils have mandated on the question of location, they've not yet embarked on the detailed exercise which will be necessary to identify a preferred location. But in our eyes that exercise needs to be conducted before the plan reaches its final approval. Just how that's going to be accomplished we don't know, we're not party to the discussions, we understand that the Greater York authorities do plan to meet shortly after the end of this examination, but just what further work is necessary before they then get onto the location aspects we don't know about that, all I would say is that we would expect final plan to have the general location of a new settlement embodied in in that plan before it is approved. It's obviously too early for me to judge whether in the absence of such a definition the Department seek to intervene, but in the word, in the light of what is said in the current P P G I think that must be a possibility, but for the moment, sir, we have very much have an open mind, and we obviously, like everyone else, are looking forward to your conclusions on this issue. Thank you.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you for putting the ball in my court.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER] [whispering] You'd better take it back again. []
[Mr E Barnett:] I'm not sure whether to bat it back to you, but no I won't.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr Grantham.
[Mr Christopher Timothy:] Er John Grantham, C P R E, erm just coming back to the to the general questions you you asked earlier about about erm consistency with guidance and and P P G three in particular, erm in in the written evidence we we've addressed that, and I don't wish to go over that ground short of saying that that I feel the contribution from er Mr Jewitt, which was Hambledon's particularly helpful in that regard in in I think explaining erm how government guidance is different now to when to to to how it was er at the earlier deliberations of the Greater York authorities, and I feel that that's very important consideration erm, I'd I'd like to restrict my my comments just to two points, and they they both really refer to to things that were introduced by the representative from from Barton Willmore. Erm, Mr Brighton was was critical of the County Council in just using the residual method to determine the size of the new settlement, er and then in in backing up that justification erm referred to to work that is included in in Barton Willmore's proof, I've I have read this survey work quite carefully, and my understanding of it is is that erm by un undertaking a survey of settlements in the county, they have established, albeit f f f for information purposes only, a population threshold for a particular type of service, erm, in in the North Yorkshire context, erm the implication I I understand from that is is that that is being used to justify a fourteen hundred figure or or whatever it is to to achieve the level of services that would would be required for a a balanced integrated community to to use the words for the guidance. I think the the the B W the Barton Willmore analysis appears to overlook the fact, and again Mr Jewitt referred to this when he referred to Easingwold, that settlement evolves over time, and and nobody seems to be addressing the point that that fourteen hundred, fifteen hundred, two thousand houses, however many it is, won't appear over night, erm er th it would take some time for that to be to be realized erm and as part of that there's no clear view as to when the services will come along that are that are necessary to give that community the balance it it said it requires, erm, Mr Timothy from Wood Fram Frampton referred I think to a figure of twelve fifty dwellings for a viable new settlement, and there were plenty ex of of examples, quote, erm that one could look at to to see that was the case, erm I I'd be interested to know where those examples are an and what there make up erm is. Just as an aside,thi this is an issue that's currently being grappled with by Litchfield City Council, where the circumstances are erm albeit on a slightly smaller scale similar with with the historic city, and they are commissioning research on this very subject of of service pro provision in in new settlements. My second point, and it refers to again er something that Barton Willmore referred to and that's the question er an engine of growth, and it seems to to me that that that such a settlement would become an en engine of growth in in the countryside, not least because of of the it would become self fulfilling, er and it would be the obvious sort of sink hole, as Mr Thomas said, for for subsequent land allocations, I think, erm this this point has been touched upon by both the representatives from Leeds City Councils and from Cleveland, Leeds City Council appear not to want it in the Leeds York corridor for just that reason, the representative from Cleveland, who unfortunately isn't here today erm doesn't want it in the North of the county for for what I understand to be to be that same reason, erm and the Inspector at the Stone Basset erm enquiry in Oxfordshire, and I I do refer th to this in my evidence, he he drew a very similar conclusion about this when he said, and I quote, once destep once established the new town would generate a momentum of growth that would be difficult to contain, such growth, if allowed, could further harm the rural character of the countryside and the villages in this part of Oxfordshire, I think that conclusion can be applied to North Yorkshire, and I certainly haven't heard anything that would convince me that that such growth once it started could could be controlled, and indeed the the record of controlling growth against erm projected requirements in the structure plan to date has has not been good, witness earlier comments on the structure plan overshoot. I think just to conclude the the engine of growth argument, erm, has obviously been raised in relation to other new settlements, notably Cambridge and and this has been referred to already, erm the situation in Cambridge is different to York in in that the level of growth that's that's anticipated for that city is is is significantly higher, and the new settlement erm proposals there have been considered in in that regard and and just for the record C P R E have supported the the new settlement in that particular location, but it does seem to me that the returning to your basic point, that that erm if one applies those circumstances in Nor North Yorkshire it does fly in the face of of established policy in the structure plan, and the overriding er policy is is one of restraint in what is is considered to be one of the country's most sensitive environmental areas, thank you.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you. Er Mr Brook, and then Mr Curtis.
[Mr Clive Brook:] Clive Brook, Clive Brook Associates. Er I'd just like to come back on three fairly brief points that er one of which was mentioned by Michael Courcier, two of which er relate to that, and were helpfully stimulated in discussion during the tea break, erm Michael Courcier, I think if I got him right, said, he did say we can't produce demographic forecasts for post two thousand and six but I think he was fairly guarded in saying it it wouldn't be wise or or whatever, erm I would suggest in this context, and in the context of, and I use the word emerging and I look for advice as to when emerging regional planning guidance, and when will be the end date of that regional planning guidance, I say we should be looking beyond two thousand and six, I say we can look beyond two thousand and six, and I would suggest we do it in the way of arrange, which would be highly appropriate way of doing it, not too dissimilar to road traffic forecasts, low medium and high growth, and if, to put the point simplistically, if we have arrived at a requirement figure of nine seven for Greater York for a specific period, if we were to either project that forward by five or ten years, obviously we couldn't just simply go rata, but if you took a low figure and you halved it on the basis of the make up, the demographic make up, of how the nine seven had been arrived at it would be possible to produce a range, that then relates to the question of a new settlement, and the alternatives during the period to two thousand and six, and beyond, of that new settlement, and I go back again to the greenbelt, it is vitally important to do that in the terms of a long term defined greenbelt, therefore again in that context, I would say it is highly desirable, if not necessary, to revisit the periphery of York, it has not been examined in a local plan, it has not been examined in terms of environmental impact, with all due respect to the Greater York working party their, the level of analysis of those peripheral blocks of land was fairly cursory, on a limited number of planning criteria, if a new settlement is to be assessed alongside expansion of Greater York we have to revisit it in much much greater detail. The final point is in terms of deliverability, when could any new settlement actually produce housing? A number of criteria would relate to that and we we simply, it isn't appropriate I know, sir, to go into the detail of that, but I I postulate briefly certain questions. Assuming a fair wind on major infrastructure, access, and drainage, it is unlikely that a new settlement would be producing a significant group of housings until somewhere around, at the very best, end ninety six into the of ninety seven period, in that context, what is happening in that short intervening period, assuming certain planning guidance comes forward to help that intervening period, and will that new settlement actually be built out prior to two prior to two thousand and six, will the fourteen hundred dwellings be built in that period, question mark, probably not, it will lap over, therefore in that context of a gap at the beginning, and a potential overlap at the end, it is very important again to revisit the peripheral land issue.
[Mr E Barnett:] I'll point those latter questions in the direction of Mr Davis to pick up in his concluding remarks on this discussion. As to R P G er and its birth, mid December Mr Wincup?
[Mr Paul Brighton:] Wincup, D O E. Perhaps.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Mr E Barnett:] And the end date is two thousand and six, as I remember it?
[Mr Paul Brighton:] That's the idea, sir.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes, thank you. There's two points in answer for you Mr Brook. Er, Mr Timothy, and then Mr Brighton.
[speaker001:] There's Mr Curtis.
[Mr E Barnett:] Sorry, sorry Mr Curtis, I'll forget.
[Mr Clive Brook:] Thank you, Chair. David Curtis, York City Council. Erm, two er three points would I like, erm, picking up a couple of comments earlier, and coming back to a, I think if we use a cricketing analogy, a long hop I'd like to bowl at you Chair, and you may hit it in Mr Wincup's direction. Comment was made this morning, er earlier on by Mr Timothy about the fact that the new settlement would be likely to generate a higher usage of transport than is the norm for Greater York, if I understood him correctly, erm, knowing the public transport system in Greater York, erm, I fail to see how he could possibly come to that conclusion, because bus services in the rural part of Greater York are very poor, clearly that's partly because of the distribution of the rural population, and I fail to see that a settlement of the size being suggested would actually generate a level of usage of public transport any higher than that which ex already exists in the York in flat, and certainly no higher than exists within the exis existing urban area. The second point i is this issue about self containment, er Mr Davis accused me this morning of using some somewhat outlandish words, I think, erm, I did obviously refer to the er my vision of what a new settlement of this size proposed would be, and I I didn't in that mean to imply that I didn't in that mean to imply that I didn't expect that with the right planning that it couldn't have clearly local facilities, local school, library, etcetera, but it seemed to me quite clear that the scale proposed it would not have the higher order functions which as we've heard earlier, Greater York has been defined based on York's planning assumptions, clearly the major shopping, educational, and social facilities will continue to be provided in the city, and it will produce what is in effect dormitory settlement. The point made by Mr Bishop about employment, shopping and other land I also wish to respond to, I think one of the other participants did mention the issue of existing provision, it's been quite clear from the work of the Greater York authorities that certainly shopping terms there is an oversupply of shopping companies in and around the edge of the urban area at the present time, we have a number of major outstanding consents which have not yet been taken up. There is actually more than enough land already available to within the main urban area to provide the types of facilities that Mr Bishop was saying were not currently available. And the long hop as it were, sir, it maybe er not an appropriate time to ask about, but I think it's important to understand, certainly I would like to understand, that if this panel, this enquiry doesn't establish the location for the new settlement, Mr Wincup is implying that that should be agreed before the plan is adopted by the County Council. At what point after this panel finishes sitting then will the issue be discussed in a public forum of this type, or is Mr Wincup saying the County Council can of itself determine that issue without further public examination. Thank you.
[Mr E Barnett:] That's not a long hop, that's a googly.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Mr E Barnett:] I think what what Mr Wincup was saying at the end of the day, is that the Inspector's report and the conclusions on the greenbelt local plan will go back to the parent authority, the originating authority, which is North Yorkshire, equally my rec report, out recommendations on this alteration go back to North Yorkshire, they have to take regard to whatever we recommend, ultimately they will take a decision on that, erm depending on the decision other things may flow from it, and I can't really speculate on what those are at the moment, but effectively the final decision as to what they accept or reject will rest with North Yorkshire. Can I suggest though that there is, using the cricket metaphor again, a long stop role fielded by the secretary of state. Alright? Mr Timothy.
[Mr Christopher Timothy:] Jus just three brief points. Firstly responding to Mr Grantham and his reference to Litchfield, a city where I work and live, erm
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Mr Christopher Timothy:] the situa, perhaps it's worth outlining how Litchfield came to look at the new settlement option, because it has some relevance to to York
[Mr E Barnett:] C can I just stop you there and say is it relevant?
[Mr Christopher Timothy:] It's absolutely relevant.
[Mr E Barnett:] To, to anything we're going to consider about a new settlement around York?
[Mr Christopher Timothy:] Absolutely because in York, in sorry, in Litchfield you have a confirmed greenbelt right up to the boundary, they were pursuing a local plan for the Li the city of Litchfield in isolation from the rest of the district, and there they were promoting seven hundred and fifty houses to be taken out of the greenbelt. The Inspector who reported on that Litchfield city local plan said, go away, leave your Litchfield city plan and look at the options beyond the greenbelt, including erm the possibility of a new village, and I think that's that's the point here, instead of rolling back the greenbelt you should be looking beyond, you know, what is the general extent of the greenbelt to see what options are available, just coming on then to the size point, again that Mr Grantham raised, I have through erm experience both in the Cambridge situation which I referred to extensively erm in my statement, and in East Staffordshire where we are promoting a plan, er a site for a new village which is included in the deposited plan, we've looked in both the Cambridge and the er East Staffordshire situation,bo at service provision, both from speaking to the providers of those services and whether or not they need a specific facility in the settlement, and from the developers point of view, that if you've got a pot of money what can you afford to erm provide within a settlement of that size, and the conclusions we are rai er sort of reaching are a du a settlement of the order of twelve fifty dwellings can support your primary school, community centre, erm a range of shops, and so on and so forth, so what I'm saying in my submission that the an appropriate size is in the thousand fifteen hundred mark, is that were you can get a reasonable co balance of community facilities and provide the relevant infrastructure in terms of services. And it's going back to the point that Mr Curtis I think misunderstood me, that's basically that if you concentrate new growth in one location you have the ability to plan to serve that development by public transport, whereas if you spread it out to all the points of the compass, you know, two hundred houses in one direction of York, two hundred in the opposite direction would become very mor more difficult to serve than would a concentrated er chunk of development, and that's as simple as that.
[Mr E Barnett:] Not so simple, but never mind.
[Mr Christopher Timothy:] Yes.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr Brighton.
[Mr Paul Brighton:] Paul Brighton, Barton Willmore, Paul Brighton, Barton Willmore Planning Partnership. You asked, sir, a little earlier for a definition of integrated and balanced community, and erm I'm disappointed that er you didn't recall my paragraph three fifteen of my submission to you were I set out erm I thought erm
[Mr E Barnett:] My senses are dimming, having read all this material.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Mr Paul Brighton:] erm, where I set out my interpretation of what that means, and I don't think it's very helpful to read that out to you, but I think you will find that it's er erm a very broad er description of what the new settlement should be seeking to achieve, now Mr erm I think has misunderstood our position on this question of erm the appropriate size for the new settlement, and I think if I'm correct he suggested that we were promoting a a size of fourteen hundred, the point I think I would make is that the larger the new settlement erm the greater the range and the quality of services and facilities that can be provided, and I think you have to distinguish between what developers say they are prepared to provide, on the one hand in a new settlement, whatever the size, the quality of the retail or recreational social facility that occupies that physical provision, and also its long term viability, and I would suggest that a larger new settlement of the size that we are suggesting, is much more likely to er attract a range of quality providers of services and facilities than a smaller new settlement, and also Mr Grantham er raised the issue of the question of the development program, and what might be expected in terms of services and erm during the development program, and of course I think that would be a matter for any specific proposal, or a ma a matter of discussion between the local planning authority concerned and the developer, and I would expect it to be something erm that was included within a section one O six agreement. [tape change] Finally, erm various terms have been erm thrown around about new settlements being an engine of growth and a sinkhole for future growth, erm the only point I want to make there is that any future growth beyond the present structure plan period of two thousand and six would of course be subject to the planning system, there is no automatic erm growth erm of any new settlement that is proposed or may be proposed beyond two thousand and six, and Mr Davis has indicated that at that time a new study will be carried out on the relative merits of the alternative options that were seen at that time. Thank you.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you. [cough] [whispering] It's alright, thank you. []
[Mr Anthony (tony) Sexton:] Er yes, Chairman, thank you. Terry Heselton, Selby District. Erm won't take up much time Chairman, because I think most of the points I want to cover have already been covered by previous speakers. Erm simply to remind you of the position of of Selby District in in that our interest in a new settlement emerged out of concern for the quality of life in existing villages in in Selby district, and concerns for the impact of future peripheral development in those villages, and not just peripheral development on the edge of York, although of course we acknowledge that as an important consideration and it is for that reason that we fully supported the County Council's proposals in relation to greenbelt, erm you asked the question earlier in relation to the P P G advice and and the six criteria, erm in fact I've already rehearsed that argument in my submission so I won't repeat it now, erm the fact that you chose to phrase the question that way I'll take as a good omen as to the way I presented my submission, but it it it's there for you to read again, the the the main point that I want to address is something that was raised by Mr Wincup yesterday, and that was the difference or not as between Selby district and Hambledon district, er [cough] M Mr Jewitt's made reference earlier to his opposition to the new settlement, and in doing so he he he mentioned the settlement pattern in Hambledon district, he'll correct me if I'm wrong, but one of small dispersed villages, well in Selby district we do have villages of that nature, but the Northern part of of Selby district is significantly deferent to Hambledon, it's characterized by much larger villages, and in fact the establishment of a new settlement wouldn't conflict with with the settlement pattern at all. I can well understand M M Mr Jewitt's concerns, erm I think the simple fact of the matter is that not a great deal of Greater York new housing demand is likely to be generated in Hambledon district, whereas in Selby district a significant amount of er demand is likely to be generated, so really by way of conclusion I I would like through you to ask Mr Mr Jewitt if his opposition to the new settlement is as a matter of principle, or whether he's really stating the case for Hambledon district, in other words, would he object to a new settlement in Selby district?
[Mr E Barnett:] I leave Mr Jewitt to answer that question. Mr Jewitt.
[Mr Michael Jewitt:] Michael Jewitt, Hambledon District Council. Erm, I think I answered this question this morning in response to erm Miss Whitaker's erm er question to me, erm Hambledon's objection to the principle of a new settlement is based upon, erm, our interpretation of P P G three, we feel that, as I said, it would be disingenuous of us to support the principle at this stage knowing that we were unwilling to accept a new settlement in Hambledon. Erm, we wouldn't want the policy to progress so far erm as to get to the stage of looking for a specific site and for us to pull the rug underneath the County, and for other authorities to pull the rug from underneath the County at that stage, erm to answer to Mr Heselton's specific question, of course we wouldn't object to a new settlement er in Selby, but erm it doesn't erm it doesn't detract from our objection to erm the principle of the policy, the way the policy's expressed.
[Mr E Barnett:] So, putting it another way, you don't agree with the principle of a new settlement, but if it happened to be found elsewhere, other than Hambledon, you'd let it ride?
[Mr Michael Jewitt:] That's correct, Chairman.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you. Satisfied, Mr Heselton?
[Mr Anthony (tony) Sexton:] Erm, to a degree.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Miss D Whitaker:] [whispering] That's the most you can hope for. []
[Mr E Barnett:] [LAUGHTER] Thank you very much. Erm, pursuing now, I'm going to ask whether there are any more comments on this particular part of this issue? Because I would like to move on, but I have got, I have got some outstanding questions to ask, er mainly directed at the Districts, and the County, of course. But does anyone else want to make a contribution? Or do you think we've covered enough ground? Can I, can I then come back to P P G three?... [paper rustling]
[speaker001:] [whispering] There. []
[Mr E Barnett:] [whispering] Which one? []
[speaker001:] [whispering] Here. []
[Mr E Barnett:] [whispering] Yes, it's alright. []
[Miss D Whitaker:] [whispering] expansion of existing towns and []
[Mr E Barnett:] [whispering] Why not? Well that's in the []
[Miss D Whitaker:] [whispering] Yes. []
[Mr E Barnett:] [whispering] for the County. []
[Miss D Whitaker:] [whispering] relevant to everybody else []
[Mr E Barnett:] [whispering] Aha. []
[Miss D Whitaker:] [whispering] it's not specifically for the County. []
[Mr E Barnett:] [whispering] Mhm. [] [cough] We come back to in fact it's the first par, again it's the first part of thirty three, that you have looked at the question, or the possibility of expanding existing towns and villages, and as I read it, you have rejected that, er and therefore you see the only satisfactory method of providing land to meet the figures for the Greater York would be by a new settlement, this is the outstanding balance.
[Miss D Whitaker:] [whispering] Why? []
[Mr E Barnett:] Why have you done that? Are you satisfied that you've done enough examination of your existing towns and villages to come to that conclusion?... Mr Jewitt?...
[Mr Michael Jewitt:] Erm, thank you Chairman. Er Michael Jewitt, Hambledon District. Erm I cannot speak for other districts, and they are a far
[Mr E Barnett:] No, I only want you to speak for yourself.
[Mr Michael Jewitt:] Yes.
[Mr E Barnett:] Okay.
[Mr Michael Jewitt:] And they have a far greater proportion of the Greater York area than we do, erm as I outlined we just have three relatively modest villages, erm our, we do have a concern erm, on this, in that we don't ac, given there's a a district and an area have not be identified, we don't feel that there has been a comparative assessment of the two options, we don't dispute that they may well be harm er from peripheral development around other distric, around settlements in other districts, we acknowledged other other District Council's concerns, and indeed, these are arguments we have used ourselves on the scale of development in Hambledon, er but we don't feel that there has been a properly balanced assessment of the two options.
[Miss D Whitaker:] It occurs to me, for example, that given that all we've heard this afternoon about the fact that a new settlement and again I'm playing devil's advocate, that if it were possible to build onto an existing settlement the quality of life of those who lived in the new settlement might in fact be better than if they were, to put it crudely, finding themselves in the middle of a field. What I'm really searching for is a bit more evidence from the C, all participants as to why the principle of expanding an exis existing settlement has been rejected, I well appreciate that those who lived in the settlement that was chosen would not like it, but that's not the point I'm getting at, is there nothing in this principle of building on what's there?... [whispering] Mr Courcier. []
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr Courcier.
[Miss D Whitaker:] Michael Courcier. I think that's a very good question, I think though that that has been looked at very very thoroughly by the County Council, and certainly there are only a very limited number of options available around York which would actually meet the needs of York. And one looks at the two most likely existing settlements on which you could do that to are, of course, Easingwold, to the Nor to the Northwest, and Tadcaster to the South. In terms of Easingwold, I have a client who owns about forty acres who would be delighted with [LAUGHTER] that solution [] but erm, I don't think that Easingwold could support that level of development, if we're talking a around about two thousand dwellings, without very very substantial harm to its character and setting. This is a historic town, I I disagree with Mr Jewitt upon the emphasis he gives to that, but I do agree with him that a limit the type, the scale of growth which that solution would imply would be hurtful, would be very, extremely harmful to the town. It also must be remembered er that the transport links to Easingwold would not be good enough to support that level of development, it does not have a rail station and it does it, and the A nineteen is only a single carriageway road, and would need ld need isagree with Mr Jewitt upon re 1 Now, wouldn't necessarily suggesting that the existing settlement would have to sustain all of the addition given only what it's got at the moment. I'm sorry It could have it could have some more shopping, it could have another primary school, it could have a rail link, or some other public transport link. Michael Courcier. I fully I fully accept that, er you would obviously build in the facilities which are necessary, but the most of the settlements are limited by existing physical and other constraints, and those cannot be overcome, you cannot duel the A nineteen as far as Easingwold without very substantial harm, for example to the open countryside, even if it were physically possible and economically possible, to expand Easingwold, sorry, to expand Tadcaster to the required size, we'd need to roll back greenbelt boundaries, again contrary to P P G two. It er it, we, certainly the expansion of Tadcaster has been looked at quite thoroughly, though not only by the local authorities, but by the private sector, and the, and I think the the agreement has been that it it is not possible at the scale which is required to meet the needs of Greater York. Thank you.
[Mr E Barnett:] Would Mr Cunnane, and the District Planning Officer for the Tadcaster area, that's Selby, concur with the views expressed by Mr Courcier? Do you want to add anything to it, Mr Cunnane?
[speaker001:] I do wish to add one point.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes.
[speaker001:] Er, Joe Cunnane, er, actually, sorry, two points, erm [LAUGHTER] I represent, ha, that's not I hope that's cheating. I represent erm the the er the brewery which is located in Tadcaster, and erm I can I can er say without hesitation to this panel that erm the brewery object most strongly, or would object most strongly, to any suggestion that a level of population growth suggested woul should be accommodated. Tadcaster is a populat has a population of around six thousand at the moment, and if the s the level of increase that is proposed were su were imposed upon Tadcaster you would be talking about a fifty percent increase in the size of the town. That would be impossible to accommodate without major adverse effect up what is a historic town, almost entirely er located within a conservation area, and as Mr Curtis said, erm constrained by the greenbelt, the final point is er it is located within the A sixty four corridor and it is inevitable that it would serve the needs of Leeds rather than the needs of York if it were expanded in that way.
[Mr E Barnett:] Okay.
[Mr Anthony (tony) Sexton:] Terry Heselton, Selby District. [cough] This is perhaps one of those rare occasions where I almost agree with Mr Cunnane. Perhaps not quite to the level of the the development that may be appropriate, but but yes, of of the three market towns in in Selby district it's acknowledged that Tadcaster would have a a less significant role than the other two market towns, if I can put it that way, and yes, there are a number of constraints in Tadcaster, not not the least of which i is an ownership constraint.
[Miss D Whitaker:] Thank you. [cough] Mr Jewitt, while we pose the question about Easingwold.
[Mr Michael Jewitt:] Michael Jewitt, Hambledon District Council. Erm, I find myself agreeing with what Mr Courcier said, er, about Hambledon, I don't think it realistic to expect existing settleme, villages within the area of search to form a nucleus for a new settlement, they're simply too small and would be swamped by any development, and also the er I stand by the statements made yesterday about the environmental quality of the settlements, about there form, settings, and characters, and I really don't think that they could form the nucleus of a new settlement. With regard to Easingwold, well of course Easingwold is at present outside the area of search, erm but again I do agree with what Mr Courcier has said, it would be a doubling the size of Easingwold, Easingwold is a small market town of high environmental quality, the existing form and pattern of development within Easingwold, erm exercise constraints over the scale of future development, the central area is of a certain size, of a certain quality, it's got a certain amount of capacity to accept further development, and I don't believe that a a erm grafting a fur further fourteen hundred houses could be fitted in to that existing infrastructure without serious harm.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you, very much, yes, thank you. Mr Curtis.
[Mr Clive Brook:] David Curtis, York City Council. I thank you Chair, I mean, clearly I have to ask for a little bit of license on this one, in that I have to comment on things outside of my own district, erm but you will not be surprised to hear, given my evidence earlier that the City Council's view is quite clearly that there is sufficient land with, on the edge of York, the main urban area, which could accommodate this type of level of development and obviate the need for a new settlement in the structure plan period, I accept, however, of course that that is dependant upon the definition of the inner boundary of the greenbelt, if the City Council's view on that is er acceptable then Inspector, I believe there will be sufficient sites to obviate the the need for a new settlement, clearly if the Inspector takes a tighter view on the greenbelt, then there will be little land opportunity within the main urban area for this.
[Mr E Barnett:] Well I, I mean, you know, just forget your admin boundary at the moment, I mean would you concur with the views expressed about Tadcaster and Easingwold?
[Mr Clive Brook:] I
[Mr E Barnett:] Just as a planner, never mind where you're working.
[Mr Clive Brook:] I I would be surprised if either of those settlements could accommodate the level of development being suggested in a satisfactory way.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you very much. Now, Mr Smith, Ryedale.
[Mr Michael Jewitt:] Ian Smith, Ryedale. Erm on the question of whether or not we're satisfied that we've done enough examination to reach our conclusion, we've examined our greenbelt boundaries on two occasions, firstly as part of the Greater York study, and secondly as part of the work on the Southern Ryedale local plan. The District Council has accommodated the highest proportion of Greater York growth of all the districts surrounding York over the last ten years, and therefore I think it likely that it would expected to accommodate the largest proportion of the fourteen hundred dwellings that would be accommodated in the new settlement, erm I do not think that any of the settlements or that there is sufficient land within the Southern Ryedale area to accommodate that level of development without adversely affecting character of the settlements, or compromising greenbelt objectives, as I mentioned this morning, and also I question whether or not erm whether th most of the settlements in the Southern Ryedale area have only a minimal s minimal service base anyway on which to tack any large housing growths, and I don't necessarily foresee any subsequent rise in the service base of those settlements as a result of the housing being added on to them.
[Mr E Barnett:] And thinking about your district, I mean places like Pickering and Malton are too far away to be satisfactorily considered, are they?
[Mr Michael Jewitt:] Ian Smith, Ryedale District. Yes they're erm I mean there erm Malton's what thirty minutes drive from York, Pickering's probably forty five, up to an hour.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes, yes. Thank you. [whispering] []
[Miss D Whitaker:] [whispering] []
[Mr E Barnett:] [whispering] Yes. []
[Miss D Whitaker:] [whispering] But he hasn't said whether he accepts the settlement. []
[Mr E Barnett:] [whispering] He doesn't. []
[Miss D Whitaker:] [whispering] Alright, okay. []
[Mr E Barnett:] [whispering] Come back to that one. []
[Miss D Whitaker:] [whispering] Okay. []
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr Frost.
[Mr Girt:] Lindsay Frost, er Harrogate Borough Council. Just to complete the picture on the districts around York, erm and in answer to the issue raised by er Miss Whitaker, I think the villages in erm the Harrogate sector of Greater York are all far too small to erm act as a nucleus for the size of development we're talking about here, er the largest of them, Upper Poppleton, probably has about seven hundred to eight hundred houses, and that I think would be swamped and lose its character and also possibly suffer from coalescence with the nearby York urban area, if er large amounts of additional development were tacked onto it. Er I'm also concerned that the services in er even a village that size would be erm overwhelmed by the demands of erm large scale development, but that's the largest, there are a range of other settlements which are mostly much smaller and even much less able to accommodate, or act as a nucleus for large scale development. I would like to emphasize that erm the Greater York authorities haven't lightly arrived at erm the strategy for a new settlement, er we have been driven to it by a very careful examination of the development possibilities, firstly around the edge of York, and secondly around the various villages, we know these areas erm intimately from our day to day planning work, and on two occasions, once in connection with the Greater York study, and secondly in connection with drawing detailed greenbelt boundaries we have tramped around the edges of all these settlements and looked very carefully at the possibilities for development, erm the possibilities have been taken up in the development equation, which the County Council has put in front of you, which does still include er some development around villages and around the edge of the city without harming greenbelt, but we don't really think we can go much further, and that's what has driven us to the conclusion that er a new settlement must play a part in the longer term development equation for Greater York. Thank you.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you. Mr Cunnane.
[speaker001:] Joe Cunnane, I'm sorry, but er Chairman, but I did actually miss probably the most important point I should have made about Tadcaster
[Mr E Barnett:] [LAUGHTER]
[speaker001:] and that is that it is
[Mr E Barnett:] It's never too late.
[speaker001:] never, no, and that is that it is constrained by a very tight village envelope which has actually just been defined and statutorily approved as an alteration to the rural areas local plan erm, and th the effect of that village envelope is to limit the possible amount of development to I would say no more than three or four hundred house.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you.
[Mr Girt:] Chairman. Er Terry Heselton,Sel Selby District. Just er for clarification that that is indeed the case as Mr Cunnane says, but the erm the village envelopes were brought forward by way of an alteration to the adopted rural areas local plan which will take us up to nineteen ninety six, erm we will possibly have to look and review some of those envelopes in connection with the emerging local plan.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you very much. Sorry to sound a little perverse on that issue, but I, we really wanted to have a clear indication of what you felt as District Planning Officers, er an and indeed we'll hear what the County feel and in fact have pursued through this alteration, but can I again, just for clarification, and in fact it's a sort of final head count, er and again I raise this in the context of P P G three paragraph thirty three, and that is the degree of acceptability, or otherwise, by the local planning authorities, erm and I only need a nod from you, or otherwise, for the record. York, I take it, are not in favour of a new settlement? You don't have to go over the arguments, I've heard that. Ha Selby are in favour.
[speaker001:] Correct.
[Mr E Barnett:] Ryedale are in favour, in principle. Hambledon, not in favour. Either in principle, or in detailed allocation, but wouldn't object if it went somewhere else.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Mr E Barnett:] I'm not not being rude. And Harrogate in favour. Thank you. Mr Cunnane is that up for some reason, that flag of yours?
[speaker001:] No. [LAUGHTER]
[Mr E Barnett:] Now unle [LAUGHTER] now unless there are any participants that want, really burning to make a comment, er I feel that we have settled, well we've had enough discussion on little A, I've got enough, well I've got enough from you in terms of your views about size of settlement, and Mr Brighton has pointed me again in the direction of his submission about er the definition of an integrated and balanced community, I would like to know, er from Mr Davis whether he concurs with that sort of interpretation, and I have a feeling that we have also had an expression, generally, that at the moment one settlement is probably appropriate, if you have to have a new settlement. Fair? Is that a fair conclusion? I did add that rider, just. Mr Davis, can you, would you like to sum up, and pick up these points, and before, I'm going to bowl you a googly here, erm you have talked about fourteen hundred, as the size for the new settlement, erm, is that the top figure, or is that a figure to which you might aim by the year two thousand and six, but may have potential for growth beyond it.
[speaker001:] Can I add that to my list? Er Peter
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes.
[speaker001:] Davis, er North Yorkshire. I want at the end erm, Chairman to give you my views of what is meant by er, an integrated and balanced community because I think that's that's quite important, but before I do that, I'd like to mop up one or two er points right at the end in response to some of the contributions that have been made, and I'll deal with them, Wincup, Curtis, Brook, er and Thomas, if that's acceptable er to you, and really as far as Mr Wincup is concerned, he's quite properly raised the issue of procedural issues about how the Greater York authorities is going to address moving towards er an agreed location, and quite clearly I've got to reaffirm again that the County Council will want to look at both the greenbelt local plan report and your panel report before er it moves erm er forward or looks at any conclusions it may be moving to in the light of those er in the light of those reports, and quite clearly, as we all know, there are a number of options. Er and I, as Mr Curtis has suggested, if Mr Shepherd who conducted the greenbelt local plan enquiry decided on massive relaxation or substantial relaxation on the inner boundary, er of the greenbelt, er and the implication being that er some of that land could be made available for housing, then yes, as a matter of principal that would cast doubt on the new settlement er strategy in terms of the in terms of the numbers, conversely, if you look at another option, if you, for example, confirmed the new settlement strategy but thought that the development requirement for Greater York really was er needed to be larger than nine thousand seven hundred dwellings, twelve thousand, thirteen thousand, and I hope not, then the County Council would need to have a look at the issue of one as opposed to two new settlements, and again we will do that, and we will not take any decisions on the basis of having one report, er but not another, and I hope er that that is helpful, I can confirm that er at the end of this month the Greater York authorities will be meeting, erm and er they will be urgently looking towards erm progress erm on this issue. So that's really a a very important underlining of what I said earlier. Moving on to to Mr Curtis, I don't want to dwell and re re er restate the the difference I had with Mr Curtis this morning, but again he did start a little bit of a red herring running by talking about the major commitment for retailing facilities, er there is a major commitment for retailing facilities in Greater York, er a degree of all provision. But the level of all provision of course is in terms of comparison goods, and in terms of large shopping malls. Erm now I I don't think anybody's suggesting that in er the Greater York new settlement we would be likely to achieve a large shopping mall anchored at both ends, one by Marks and Spencers er and the other by Fenwicks, or or or any o or bins or any other department store, so he must really understand the process and really what we talking about er er in North Yorkshire. Moving onto er to Mr Brook, erm and really this leads into Mr Thomas, Mr Brook er erm er advised us, advised you that there was a very cursory look at er er at sites during this five year exercise. Well I can tell you, sir, that is incorrect, there has not been a cursory look at sites as Mr Frost has already underlined. Er, the forty, fifty sites in and around the urban area, and in villages were looked at in detail, as Mr Frost said, by tramping around in terms of of of I think er twelve criterium, although the part of er York City Council's erm er evidence. As for long term projections er er another issue raised by erm er Mr Brook, er I think if we were to go beyond two thousand and six the debate we've had erm yesterday, er what day is Thursday, er Tuesday [LAUGHTER] and Wednesday, erm and to small degree today would pale into insignificance and really er er it might boggling to to think about it, to try and erm er to draw some sense out of er demographic data for the post two thousand and six er er scenario, the uncertainty would be so great that erm that er we certainly wouldn't er er advice it. Er and then finally on Mr Thomas, er Mr Thomas erm, a number of occasions has er has referred to these sites in and around the er er urban area, if Mr Thomas would like us to show us a list of those sites, er we will look at them, we've been through it on a number of occasions, square inch almost by square inch, but I'd be very interested for Mr Thomas's list of sites in and around the urban area. Now that does bring me on to another important issue, and this is the definition of integrated er and balanced community. What does the County Council mean by an integrated er and balanced community? I wouldn't define integrated and balanced individually, I'd link them together, because to me they appear to be er a concept, that you move towards, and the concept to me is shall we say to provide a balanced population structure, which isn't biased to any one sector shall we say, it's not an elderly, it's not a retirement village there like perhaps you have in er certain parts of er er North America, and the second element of the concept is that it should provide a range of services compatible with its size, but I qualify that by saying, but not all the services that the people in that settlement require, and this brings me back to my discussion, debate with Mr Curtis. If the issue today in some people's eyes is the need for this community in Greater York to be one hundred percent self sufficient then perhaps we really ought to go pack up and er go home, er because there's no way that er a settlement that one could envisage in Greater York or perhaps anywhere else can be a hundred percent self sufficiency, self sufficient, you're not going to get a shopping mall, you'd be unlikely to get a a major touring theatre, so you cannot aim for a hundred percent self sufficiency, you aim for what is appropriate for the size of the community and particularly its relationship to existing settlements er in the general area. You aim for a reasonable provision of jobs, bearing in mind the job requirement, er within that settlement, and you aim for an appropriate range of social, recreation, and education uses, erm er within the village, so that on the basis of our proposal, as we say in N Y five, you will expect to have a primary school. Now I cannot say whether you will have a secondary school, and the reason I cannot say that er is because the education authority will, quite properly, and quite reasonably, look at the existing pattern of secondary education er in the area, and will bear in mind that secondary school children, not unreasonably, as they do now, can be expected, erm to travel, er some distance, er to a school facility, that is the real world, you cannot expect a local education authority to spend vast amounts of money erm on er a high range of facilities, which are not justified by the size, er, of the community, and all these social, recreation, er an an and education facilities appropriate to the size erm of the community, need to be expressed in a pattern of land use which is well integrated, and well designed, in other words, it's a good design concept er, and how do you do that? Well we think you do it through negotiation with developers on an agreed location, and you do it through a brief. Now that is the accepted way of doing it, and I cannot see any reason why that cannot be done, erm in Greater York, once the location for the new settlement is erm er is identified, erm so that's my definition of erm integrated and balanced community, it's a concept, you can't define, I don't think, integrated and balanced separately, you need to bind them together er into into some erm er or all er erm concept, erm now the erm the question you did pose me, sir, which er I did take a note of, but I wonder if you'd be kind enough to repeat it so I've I've a I've a got it quite clear before I respond.
[Mr E Barnett:] Well it the question was, do you see the fourteen hundred dwellings for the new settlement as being the maximum size, maximum desirable size, or do you see that being possibly continued beyond two thousand and six?
[speaker001:] I don't have any view erm er on that, if I understand your question, because I think it realistic to assume that post two thousand and six one of the options that we could be reasonably expected to consider, together with the District Council, is the possibility of a further, shall we say, how addition to, a a further phase er onto the new settlement, erm so that the new settlement erm would evolve, if that was the chosen option, and as it evolved it may well be that more of Mr David Curtis's higher level facilities er would be added. But it is an option that I certainly wouldn't want to discount at this particular er stage erm because it depends on so many er factors, it depends for example whether er the site that er has been identified for up to two thousand and six, and which is developed up to two thousand and six, has the physical capacity to expand beyond two thousand and six, and I think that that ought to be one of the considerations perhaps that we ought to look at as we move towards the identification erm er of the new settlement, conversely, it could well be that ought to be looking at a second new settlement in a different location, erm I can't give an answer, a definitive answer, what I can say is, coming back again er to Mr Brook, this sort of issue er will not be picked up in nineteen eighty eight or nineteen eighty nine, er if we are all alive and kicking in North Yorkshire and the District Councils we will be looking at it regularly, we'll be looking at it in two years time, one years time, erm erm that's the way we work in Greater York, and it's basically worked very successfully. Thank you, Chairman.
[Mr E Barnett:] There was the outstanding question about the Greater York area.
[speaker001:] Yes.
[Mr E Barnett:] Do you want to pick that one up now?
[speaker001:] Yes indeed, that
[Mr E Barnett:] Good.
[speaker001:] I think was er er erm Mr Thomas, and I think perhaps hinted on by the Senior Inspector as well, er what is, what is Greater York? to do with Sylvia, erm [LAUGHTER]
[Miss D Whitaker:] Indeed.
[speaker001:] erm I I think if you look back, and again we could put a another paper in on this, N Y one, which was erm sort of a background to the history of planning in Greater York, which er er we we did, which I think Malcolm Spittle wrote for the for the greenbelt, enquiry, erm and that showed that in the, well before nineteen seventy four of course, there there were four authorities involved in Greater York. [tape change] They were the North Riding Authority, er the East Riding Authority, the West Riding Authority, all of which converged on the on the city of York, and as you read through the files, er you will see that even then the D O E were trying to get erm those er those predecessor authorities in the late fifties, early sixties er to come to some view about what ought to be better for Greater York, so for many years the idea of Greater York ha has been current er in one guise or another. What I see as being Greater York is an area outside the city, it's the city and an area outside the city, which is socially and economically linked erm with the main urban area, which is primarily, in terms of employment er and other services, the city, now as Mr Thomas quite reasonably suggested erm things change. We defined the Greater York area erm erm initially in the in the late seventies, erm when we first ran a Greater York exercise, we redefined the area marginally in the middle, late eighties, erm erm and the definition that we have used for the Greater York study since then er is the one that we are talking about now. Now, could argue that Greater York could be bigger or smaller, the local government commission, erm er there report is a very interesting read, I mean a number of the options that they've looked at would be a gra er a city of York going out to the ring road, erm that might be one option, there's a there there idea of of Greater York, they did harden, they did see some merit in in a Greater York unitary authority based on the Greater York planning study I think, erm whether that is going to come to pass only Mr Gummer presumably er knows, so my idea of Greater York is that it's an area which is tied socially and economically to the city, you could argue as mobility increases, as the A ni nineteen is improved up through the County that really Northallerton now is perhaps more within the sphere of influence of York than it was ten years ago, erm e it was probably to a degree influenced by York even twenty years ago, erm I don't think er there is much to be gained by debating where Greater York ought to be, the Secretary of State previously hasn't been bothered about er amending it er it seems to us to be the reasonable area, and it's a combination of five districts, erm erm erm who who who hopefully should be working together towards sorting out the er other problems of Greater York.
[Miss D Whitaker:] I understood its historical evolution, what I was looking for I think, and not an answer tonight, tomorrow may be a better day, was how does the area which you have defined, for example, now relate to journey to work patterns.
[speaker001:] Hmm.
[Miss D Whitaker:] Erm, what other rational is there behind this definition, the reason this matters is th you will remember the Chairman's opening remarks when we started on matter two, that it seemed from the debate we had yesterday there was room within the county for the County Council's proposed level of housing provision
[speaker001:] Mm.
[Miss D Whitaker:] and therefore the question of the new settlement is inextricably bound up with where that provision is in relation to you br definition of Greater York.
[speaker001:] Mm. Erm I
[Miss D Whitaker:] I don't want to press for an answer tonight
[speaker001:] yes.
[Miss D Whitaker:] that may be something you want to think about, can I also remind, particularly the District Councils, those who request this morning for a different version of the H B F commitments statement.
[speaker001:] I think we'll get together, Peter Davis, with with the Districts on that particular point, as far as the previous point erm madam, erm then you can rest assured that er the County Surveyor will be rousted out of his dinner tonight er erm when I get back, with a view to er providing the information that you require.
[Miss D Whitaker:] Not necessary, Tuesday will do if it's that serious.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes, don't spoil the County Surveyors dinner, please, he might stop gritting.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you Mr Davis. Mr Brighton.
[Mr Paul Brighton:] Paul Brighton, Barton Willmore. Erm Mr Davis referred to N Y one erm in his er statement there, in the interests of saving paper I just wanted to er to state that it is included as appendix one
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes.
[Mr Paul Brighton:] this morning in our statement.
[Mr E Barnett:] I read that as well. Well unless there are any other issues that people want to rai any other items people want to raise on this issue, I propose we close now, resume at ten o'clock in the morning, and we will go straight into matters, well matter two C, to look at the di criteria.
[speaker001:] Thank you.
[Mr E Barnett:] Can I remind you we will not be sitting after lunch tomorrow, but what I would hope is we could probably deal with C and E in the morning,b by one o'clock. We have got a flexibility factor on Tuesday morning, but if I can avoid that I would like to do it, and I'm sure some some others would as well. See you tomorrow. [end of session]