[speaker001:] [cough]
[Mr E Barnett:] probably are aware of in any event is that there is a facility for sandwiches laid on and I I think you've all been told about it. Er if you want to take er use of that facility then if you haven't done so you'd better do so fairly quickly. Now I today we are going to look at er I five and I twelve which deal with employment land allocations
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Mr E Barnett:] office space and services. The matters for discussion are s spelt out but just so that you're under no illusions to what we are aiming to talk about, first issue, first matter is is the proposed provision and distribution of employment land for district councils and Greater York, the reason bearing in mind the need to provide sufficient land for employment in appropriate locations and the second matter is what effect if any will the proposed scale on provision have on adjoining areas in West Yorkshire. But we'll start quite logically with the first matter. I would ask Mr Williamson, I presume you you're leading for the County Council today to er take us through I five and I twelve. Mr Williamson.
[Mr Ken Williamson:] Thank you Chair. Could I just say before I start, I apologize in advance while I'm on the air if there there are any inadvertent s coughs and [LAUGHTER] little bit of a cold don't want to deafen anybody while er the volume was up. Gentlemen, er Ken Williamson, North Yorkshire County Council. In establishing its parameters for employment land provision of county in its eight constituent districts, the County Council's intention has been to sustain and improve the economic wellbeing of the county by ensuring that continuous supply and a wide choice of sites can be made available. The aim has been to ensure as far as possible employment opportunities are not lost or unduly constrained simply because there is a shortage of suitable sites. Such an approach is in the County Council's view, entirely consistent with government policy
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Mr Ken Williamson:] as set out in Planning Policy Guidance Notes, particularly in P P Gs four and twelve. Forecasting employment land requirements over a period of fifteen years is of course a difficult exercise at any time. The current exercise has been no exception and the task has not been made any easier by the current level of economic uncertainty and its implications for the future size and structure of employment and unemployment at the end of the plan period. In the circumstances, the County Council has sought to provide district councils with as much flexibility as possible in allocating sufficient land and to ensure that local plan preparation is not unduly constrained by an unrealistically low. Formulating these proposals, the County Council's avoided placing undue reliance on a purely technical approach to forecasting future land requirements. Such an approach is considered to be increasingly unreliable and subject to significant variations depending upon the assumptions made. The County Council's has op has opted instead to base its proposals on a wider ranging assessment which, while not discounting economic activity based projections, gives greater weight to levels and rates of land take-up, as well as knowledge of the structure and strengths and weaknesses of the local economy. The County Council believes this approach represents the most appropriate way forward in assessing long term employment land requirements. It provides district councils with a generous allocation, but not so generous in the County Council's view as to prejudice the counc the county's interests and by sterilizing land which is unlikely to be taken up or by promoting without due regard to the consequences for housing and services. Nor does the County Council believe that it will have any noticeable effect on the objectives of the adjoining authority in West Yorkshire. has the full support of six of the eight North Yorkshire district councils. Five districts Craven, Hambleton, Ryedale, Scarborough and York, the approach is sections of the local community including significantly the industrial and commercial organizations in these areas. Certainly representations have been made er which express any disagreement with the proposals in in those areas. In Richmondshire there are differences between the County Council and the District Council on the appropriate scale of employment provision amounting to about ten hectares. In Harrogate District two opposing views have been expressed, Harrogate Civic Society seeking a reduction in the allocation by at least we think of er something in the order of ten hectares, David Lock and Associates expressing the view that at least a hundred, a hundred plus a hectares should be allocated. The County Council does not however believe there is a justifiable case for moving towards any of the different positions sought by these objectors. As far as the Greater York area is concerned, objections have been lodged by Leeds City Council and by Montague Evans on behalf of a group of parish councils in Selby District adjoining York. Both consider the proposed scale of allocations to be excessive. The County Council not unexpectedly er does not agree with either submission. The allocation to Greater York has in fact been derived by extensive joint working between the County Council and the five Greater York districts. The Greater York authorities are satisfied that a hundred and forty five hectares represents an appropriate overall land allocation for the area in the context of its sub- regional importance as an employment centre, a need for greater flexibility in terms of providing land for new industrial and commercial uses, the relocation requirements of existing firms, the amount of land already committed and the opportunities for employment related development identified through the Greater York study. In respect of the proposals for Selby District, the County Council recognizes that the district has a particularly narrow economic base. It is very heavily dependent on jobs in the primary sectors, agriculture, coal mining and power generation, all of which are currently undergoing significant and extensive structural changes and rationalization. This has undoubtedly experienced si significant rise in unemployment. Nevertheless, the County Council believes it has gone as far as its possibly can to recognize and respond to the district's problems, and that it cannot justify moving any closer in reducing the gap between the recommended allocation of a hundred and thirty two hectares and the two hundred to two hundred and fifty hectares which are requested the District Council. Other objectors to the County Council's proposals, namely Leeds Council, Montague Evans and J C Cunnane, believe that they already represent a bridge and indeed several bridges too far. At this juncture Chairman er it is I think worth reemphasizing that the County Council is progressing a further selective alteration to the structure plan, not a fundamental review of the strategic approach or indeed the policies which give effect to it. I think it's necessary to stress this since a number of representations have referred specifically to the constraints which the locational strategy embodied in policy I five on the ability to deliver the proposed structure plan on employment land allocation. It shows to some extent the City was tied up with the erm issue of whether or not the structure plan should include a major exception to or indeed a strategic exception to policy. This of course is er scheduled to be discussed in the context of policy two erm the proposed open countryside policy tomorrow. It is however I think relevant to the debate on policies I five and I twelve, to the extent that the County Council adjustments to the wording of policy I five which would provide for the distributional strategy and its emphasis on directing development to locations in and adjacent to main urban areas, main towns and small towns, to be modified so as to pe permit major employment allocations to be made elsewhere and indeed on a scale which effectively improved distributional strategy. So to conclude these opening remarks, the County Council believes the level of employment land provision it proposes is necessary to meet the existing and projected employment needs
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Mr Ken Williamson:] and to ensure the local economy is not constrained by a lack of land for employment purposes. Whilst it is accepted that the total provision for the County, erm five hundred and sixteen hectares about twenty five he per cent above the approved plan provision, the County Council considers this is justified on the basis that it provides the most generous level which can be justified on the information which is available and at a time when changes in the distribution of business use are to say at the least unpredictable. The County Council therefore Chairman recommends its employment land proposal to the panel. Can I say Chairman that erm my colleague erm Mr Potter i is our technical resident technical expert and er I'm sure he'll be happy to er to take on board any of the particular queries on the methodology that's been adopted.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr Williamson, were you proposing to briefly outline the methodology or w shall we take it as read?
[Mr Ken Williamson:] Well er I wasn't Chairman, er Mr Potter I think is
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes.
[Mr Ken Williamson:] quite prepared to do that, erm.
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Mr E Barnett:] to be raised in in by various participants during the course of the discussion. The other point I have is N Y ten, can you tell me what erm we make of that one? I presume everybody's got this N Y ten.... Yes, yes.
[Mr David Potter:] The er
[Mr E Barnett:] Introduce yourself.
[Mr David Potter:] Sorry er David Potter, North Yorkshire County Council. The original calculations which are outlined in er N Y six are based on assumptions which were available at the time which were based on the eighty one census essentially, those calculations form the basis of the consultation plan and the deposit plan. At the time the committee considered representations of the deposit plan, we had available to us revised projections based on the ninety one census, also information available from the ninety nine planning census of employment and based on a number of er representations made to me formally and informally, I revised the assumptions to er incorporate ninety one census data and to in fact stretch the assumptions er in terms of their general. The indications of that er in terms of the figures affect only one district, significantly Selby.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mhm.
[Mr David Potter:] And so that, the charts you have in front of you represent the justification of all the changes to Selby's figures. Erm if I can add at this time there is in fact an error on the final table on that er
[Mr E Barnett:] Table
[Mr David Potter:] Table nine.
[Mr E Barnett:] Table nine.
[Mr David Potter:] Where the Greater York splits is incorrect.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes.
[Mr David Potter:] It w the purpose of table nine is to try and determine the rest of district allocation. That rest of district allocation's correct. The Greater York element unfortunately is not. The formula in table eight was not carried forward into table nine. I have a revised version which will cancel.
[Mr E Barnett:] Well can you give us the figures now?
[Mr David Potter:] Certainly
[Mr E Barnett:] information.... Is that the only correction to be made to table nine?
[Mr David Potter:] That is the only correction I wish to submit to table nine yes.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes.
[Mr David Potter:] Then I think er it may come up later, Mr Cunnane has identified er an error in the Selby figure, erm but I I don't wish to change that because that was the the figure that was considered as one.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Can you tell us what the revisions would be?
[Mr David Potter:] The revisions
[speaker001:] it was correct. I understand
[Mr David Potter:] Yeah.
[speaker001:] that this Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Mr David Potter:] Right, bear with me a moment.... The terms of the table nine you have before you er as far as Harrogate is concerned, instead of one point zero three, it should be two point one seven.... The Ryedale figure should be amended from twelve point zero four to sixteen point three two.... The Selby figure should be amended from thirteen point three to fourteen point two six... and the York figure from sixty one point six to ninety six point eight eight... and the Greater York figure from eighty seven point three to one two seven point six two.... changes on the other t table which has er worked out at thirty four per hectare.
[speaker001:] Yes.
[Mr David Potter:] is amended from one point three for Harrogate to two point seven four.... From fifteen point two three to twenty point six three
[speaker001:] That's for Ryedale.
[Mr David Potter:] Sorry yes for for Ryedale.
[speaker001:] Could you repeat the figure again?
[Mr David Potter:] From Ryedale it's from fifteen point two three to twenty point six three.... From Selby from fifteen point eight six to sixteen point nine one.... And from York, it's from seventy seven point nine one to a hundred and twenty two point five three.
[speaker001:] One two two point nine three?
[Mr David Potter:] Sorry a hundred sorry a hundred and sixty one point, from from York it's from seventy seven point nine one to a hundred and twenty two point five three.
[speaker001:] Fine.
[Mr David Potter:] And from Greater York it's from a hundred and ten point four one to a hundred and sixty one point four one.... They don't affect the policies because the
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Mr David Potter:] split was never carried forward into the policy we simply
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Mr David Potter:] adopted the Greater York study findings.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Can you tell
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Miss D Whittaker:] very briefly please why the Ryedale figures don't change in the same as, and the Selby figures, don't change in the same sort of way as the figures for other districts?
[speaker001:] [cough] [clears throat]
[Mr David Potter:] Erm clarify?
[Miss D Whittaker:] For example, in the first column, Greater York figure is more or less doubled.
[Mr David Potter:] Yeah.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Harrogate figure has more or less doubled, Selby is slightly increased, Ryedale is slightly increased.
[Mr David Potter:] It's to do with the way the er the totals are calculated in table eight, erm the split is divided in totals of the proportion of Greater York and the rest of the district. In different proportions.
[Mr E Barnett:] Do you just want to touch on I twelve as well Mr Williamson, before we in a general discussion?
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Mr Ken Williamson:] Thank you Chairman er Ken Williamson, County Council. Erm I think er we are er as happy with I twelve provisions having
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Mr Ken Williamson:] in that policy as we are with I five. Erm again I think the general feeling is that taken together
[speaker001:] can can you move the microphone Thank you nice to hear what he says, thank you th that would help. I think you need to.
[Mr Ken Williamson:] Yeah. Thank you Chairman I I think er as far as I twelve's concerned the County Council's er reasonably happy with that er er policy as it stands, and I think most people erm not all but but certainly the majority of people who er commented on that, commented in a sort of an affirmative way, erm again the provisions of the policy as they are hopefully reworded will er promote the same sort of flexibility and generosity that erm policy I five.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Do you regard provision in accord with point one as being part of the provision provided for N I five?
[Mr Ken Williamson:] No Chairman, we we don't.
[Miss D Whittaker:] So it is addition.
[Mr Ken Williamson:] It will be a separate er wh whatever. I mean the the policy as proposed er doesn't have any any particular figures er specific parameters in it. they are
[Miss D Whittaker:] No I appreciate that but
[Mr Ken Williamson:] they are additional to the provisions of I five.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Is that the interpretation that district councils have put upon I five I twelve I wonder?
[Mr E Barnett:] I can't hear a knock.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER] [knocking]
[Mr E Barnett:] Who's going to speak for the districts? Mr Curtis.
[Mr David Curtis:] David Curtis, York City Council. Yes the districts have been working on the basis that I twelve is an additional provision to I five.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Thank you.
[Mr David Curtis:] Thank you.
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you for that Mr Williamson.
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Mr E Barnett:] Well ladies gentlemen, the floor is yours. Who would like to start? Mr Curtis are you Yes thank you. you left your plug out.
[Mr David Curtis:] My mistake sir.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Mr David Curtis:] David Curtis, York City Council.
[speaker001:] [whispering] should I make a speech? []
[Mr David Curtis:] Very briefly I would just like to make a statement that er clearly as you'll see from our representations er er on the on the plan submission, the City Council does support the County Council's er approach to employment land provision both for the City of York and for Greater York. Particularly we do accept the the calculations that the County have used, they way in which they've used both economic activity projections and also land-take. And also we think they sensibly looked at the actual provision of sites in areas which have proved popular for employment and which do not compromise environmental objectives. It's very important to recognize that York although a historic city as I mentioned er in the previous discussion, erm is a er is an industrial city with a significant number of employment problems, in particular in the rail engineering industry where we see a rapid er contraction of er what was Brown which is now A B B, clearly continuing problems in the rail industry with the er problems most certainly caused by privatization and also major job reductions in er firms such as Rowntrees and Terrys in the confectionery industry.
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Mr David Curtis:] The work that we've done on er the economy of the city, based on economic analysis which has been submitted as part of my findings, erm shows quite clearly a continued shift away from manufacturing towards service employment and a continuing need to promote new planned opportunities in locations well suited to the needs of the market. Our estimate is that the city itself needs something in the order of five thousand jobs over the period of the structure plan to er really just to stay still, to run to run to stand still. Therefore the analysis that we've done, which is an economic analysis, actually supports the level of er calculation the County Council have produced for land requirements for the city. Unfortunately as we saw earlier with the housing discussions, we are very much a pint pot as the analogy was used and that a quart just can't be fitted into it. Therefore we accept that the actual provision within the city er will have to be considerably less than the calculated requirement for the city. The only issue that I think we have some er difficulty with in the policy as it stands at the moment, is the uncertainty that arises between the figure provided in policy I five of forty six hectares for the city, and actually our agreed calculation which I think the County Council accept, that site availability in the city is limited to something in the order of thirty three hectares if we exclude er one site which is subject to a dispute between parties er in relation to the greenbelt. But it is included in the deposit plan of the greenbelt by the County Council, that's greenbelt land, so I think bearing in mind what the the panel said the other day, I can accept this discussion that for the time being we assume that is in the greenbelt. And if we exclude that site, the maximum capacity of the city is in the order of thirty three hectares. Clearly the policy does allow for additional provision to be made outside the city in the remainder of Greater York, and that is the basis upon which the the City Council has accepted the a hundred and forty five hectare figure for Greater York. And as you will see from the County Council evidence, the er sites for them have actually been agreed during the Greater York study. So the only point on I five that I would er ask for clarification on really is that the policy be amended to clarify that the actual provision in the city be thre be thirty three hectares
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Mr David Curtis:] as I've indicated that is the physical capacity as far as we're concerned. Turning quickly into I twelve. Erm we agree entirely with the County Council's proposal to delete erm job targets or targets from the policy. This does s seem to be in line with with practice nationally at the present time. We will be making provision within our local plan for a number of erm office sites, office sites in and around the City Centre, we have identified those sites erm, I don't wish to go into those but if the panel wish to further information on those I could. But basically they will be something in the order of eighty thousand square metres worth of commercial sites in and around the city centre, on sites which we have agreed are suitable for office use. They tend to be mainly on sites being recycled from existing industrial activities er which are no longer appropriate in the city centre, things like motor traders and that kind of ac activity. So conclude briefly there in that the City Council does support the the broad thrust of the County's two policies here but we would ask for clarification on I five on the actual level of provision we should be providing on our local plan.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you Mr Curtis. Now just to clarify in my mind about, here I'm looking at the summary of your submission, you actually refer to the fact that sixty three hectares are required to meet the needs of the city, whereas I take it you say this morning that you're happy with the forty six, er but in reality you can only get thirty three ac thirty three hectares within the city. Now which which figure are we to talk about? Is it forty six s or sixty three?
[Mr David Curtis:] David Curtis, York City. Ye Yes in fact obviously with the revised information Mr Potter has, the sixty three seems to have changed anyway now. But erm the forty six is an artificial figure, it represents neither the capacity of the city nor the calculated needs, so I would not wish to er have this figure of forty six in our York plan because it doesn't actually relate to either.
[Miss D Whittaker:] The calculated need figure being what?
[Mr David Curtis:] The calculated need figure as submitted by the County Council was sixty three hectares
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes.
[Mr David Curtis:] which I was saying I was happy to accept.
[Miss D Whittaker:] I note that the approved structure plan contains a similar sort of approach to York, I E its need is greater than its capacity and the policy in the approved plan recognizes that some of the provision will not be in York itself. Has that formed a satisfactory basis for planning?... Mr Curtis.
[Mr David Curtis:] David Curtis, York City Council. It is difficult to actually say that it has formed a satisfactory basis because in in effect, the amount of land that has come forward in the city has been below the the figure that was allocated in the original structure plan. You'll see from the tables submitted by Mr Potter on past land-take that we've actually provided less than the twenty six hectares even, that's because the opportunities did not arise. Clearly as we discussed earlier in the week, erm the opportunities in the city will be on recycled land.
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Mr David Curtis:] The reason why we're having to go to a higher figure now is there are two major areas of land, er one is the land behind the railway station, the British Rail land, and the other is the land at a a location called St Nicholas Field, a former household waste site, both of which we are taking steps to bring forward for development. Therefore we believe that during the plan period, those sites are likely to come forward and make a improved contribution to meeting our share of the Greater York employment needs. I would have to say that erm in broad terms, that the existing policy has been acceptable erm in er terms of a planning basis for the city. There is a si a significant difference between the two policies though, in that the wording of the revised policy is much more specific about saying part of our need will be found elsewhere, whereas I five as in the approved structure plan merely makes reference to the fact that all of our requirement will be found in Greater York. You may find that just a subtle difference but I think that in terms of the way erm make allocation in our local plan, that it does cause some confusion.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Yes. Erm my reference was in part to the Secretary of State's notice of approval of the last alteration of the structure plan, where he said he accepted that some of the provision York provision would have to made outside the ci city boundaries. I'm still left wondering whether this sort of statement in policy is in accord with the advice now contained
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Miss D Whittaker:] in P P G twelve about the guidance the structure plan should provide to a local planner, and put my cards on the table, wonder whether it wouldn't actually be more to say if York can only provide thirty three hectares, that should be the provision first in York? So as to remove the uncertainty about erm what in effect is a sort of black box floating around perhaps attached to a hot air balloon somewhere over York.
[Mr David Curtis:] David Curtis, York City Council. Erm yes, well I I think that's a perfectly sensible way forward. I'm perfectly happy to accept a figure for York of thirty three hectares. Clearly reference can be made in the to the fact that that is not all of York's requirements but the balance is being found elsewhere within Greater York, and I would be perfectly happy with that.
[Miss D Whittaker:] I wonder if Mr Saunders has a view.
[Mr Les Saunders:] Les Saunders, D O E. I'm afraid you've stolen all my thunder, erm you've said everything that I wanted [LAUGHTER] to say []. Erm
[Miss D Whittaker:] We both read P P Gs.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Mr Les Saunders:] I am aware that the the Secretary for the erm er Secretary of State's approval letter to the area alteration does make reference to erm
[speaker001:] [clears throat]
[Mr Les Saunders:] an element of York's provision erm being found outside the district's boundaries. That was the best, at least I understand that was the best the Secretary of State could do at the time. Erm, matters have moved on from than then in terms of the er additional P P G guidance which I think makes it quite clear, as as you've already s said that erm we should be as transparent as possible in our allocations and levels for provision for employment development. Erm so that it would be in our view desirable that the level of provision for York was that which was realistic to er to accommodate, in this case it appears to be thirty three hectares and that the er the a additional element should be located in in or between the other districts in the Greater York area. Erm the this C I P and the panel's consideration en enables them to actually reach a view on that and and hopefully come forward with recommendations.
[Miss D Whittaker:] If... does, perhaps I should ask, does the County Council accept that a t more transparent position would be a logical conclusion?
[Mr Ken Williamson:] Mr Chairman, Ken Williamson, County Council. Erm I think if we could get there, obviously our our aim er would be to provide er as clearer level of guidance in the policy possible to do. Erm it's interesting, [LAUGHTER] Mr Saunders [] er when he said it it was the best the Secretary of State could do last time round, erm, I wonder why er if he couldn't do it then, it would be really possible er in any way to do it now. Erm we have available erm a a distribution obviously which is based on on sites, er and one could look at that er as a as a way forward erm
[Miss D Whittaker:] Do you contest what Mr Curtis is saying
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Miss D Whittaker:] about the capacity of York City to accommodate additional employment land?
[Mr Ken Williamson:] No Chairman I don't think we do. Erm we're quite happy with with what Mr Curtis says about that, er we acknowledge that er while the need will be er probably much greater than the it's a physical fact of life in York that there isn't a great deal of er available land. And it would have to be found er if we were to move to to the er position that Mr Curtis has said about the total need, it would have to be found somewhere else.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Thank you.
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Miss D Whittaker:] That leaves us then with... or would leave us... with a substantial provision in Greater York.... The Greater York figure doesn't I think change as a consequence of what Mr Curtis has said. But we're looking for something well in excess of a hundred hectares outside the city boundaries and essentially in the greenbelt. Is my conclusion correct?
[speaker001:] not correct. Erm we are looking and we have found in a [LAUGHTER] sense [] erm land which er is available erm to meet the provisions, the a hundred and forty five hectares that the Greater York study suggested. Erm those sites are not actually er affected by greenbelt designations.
[Miss D Whittaker:] They are inset in the greenbelt.
[speaker001:] They are within the yes, within the inner boundary of the greenbelt.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Between the York City boundary and the inner boundary of the greenbelt? The implication of what you're saying is that these hundred hectares plus can be found between the York City boundary and the inner boundary of the greenbelt?
[speaker001:] Substantially that that's correct. Erm there's also of course the issue of the within the resettlement wherever that would be, that would be er if it's accepted it would be outside Greater York, so there would be an effect in a sense on the erm the Greater York figure in the policy of a hundred and forty five hectares would be minus whatever was allocated to the resettlement.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Is it a sensible planning strategy to take all this land between the city boundary and the inner boundary of the greenbelt, in what is the current structure plan period, I wonder?... Where would you go after two thousand and six?
[speaker001:] Well I think we will be er in a sense looking erm you know at the options that are available and all the options that are available after two thousand six, er we haven't looked at those in gr in any great detail, what the options were at that time.
[Miss D Whittaker:] But those options will will be rather constrained will they not, erm
[speaker001:] Have you
[Miss D Whittaker:] a greenbelt which is intended to be permanent, a capac a city which has
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Miss D Whittaker:] limited capacity
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Miss D Whittaker:] for additional land as opposed to recycling the existing land.
[speaker001:] Well er
[Miss D Whittaker:] Will your proposed take-up of this the the white land between the city boundary and the inner boundary of the greenbelt in fact take the whole lot, or is there some reserve?
[speaker001:] Erm, Chairman there isn't er reserve available, what we will be faced with is looking at erm for post two thousand and six, all options bar essential development around around the urban area. true. If the greenbelt is to mean anything. Well there would be options other than the ability to to make further provision around the the periphery of the city, between the urban area and the greenbelt.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Essentially, aren't you saying that post two thousand and six, the options will be... two. Either to find additional land by recycling it in York, or beyond the greenbelt?
[speaker001:] That's correct Chairman I think erm, we will be looking obviously to see what the prospects were within er the urban area and er sites do and surprisingly do continue to to to arrive and come up and we some other uses, erm they would make some contribution obviously erm, the other options would as you say be to to look beyond beyond the greenbelt at the opportunities that are available there.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Can we just clarify one point. Erm the provision in policy I five does not include recycling land in in existing
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Miss D Whittaker:] industrial or commercial or business use. It is effectively in planning terms a change of use from whatever to industry or business that I find is providing for.
[speaker001:] Yes Chairman the the main provisions of I five are to to make new land provisions. I think er the circumstances of Greater York are so complex and difficult administration that erm the the additional erm possibilities that in a sense would be making a contribution.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Now now the point
[speaker001:] But what I
[Miss D Whittaker:] I was trying to clarify they don't make a contribution to the I five provision. They make a contribution to employment by virtue of an increase in employment density or or not, depending on whether that increase actually takes place but they do not contribute to the I five provision by virtue of not being a change of use.
[speaker001:] Yes I understand that point. So effectively I five is a new land for employment uses? Yes.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Can I just confirm with Mr Curtis that when he was talking about the thirty three hectares, he was talking about thirty three hectares in terms of in terms of a change of use
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Miss D Whittaker:] from whatever, be it agriculture,
[speaker001:] David Curtis, York
[Miss D Whittaker:] housing to industry.
[Mr David Curtis:] David Curtis, York City Council. I would answer that we are talking about a change of use but I have to add the reminder that the largest area inside the city is currently British Rail land. It's not in industrial use if one takes the definition that it's railway land.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Yes, yes.
[speaker001:] I appreciate that. Well it's certainly not in industrial use at the moment is it? Yes.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Can I just clarify one other point with the County Council and for the benefit of those who've not been here for the last however many days. We were talking about the new settlement. To clarify that we established yesterday that the new settlement will not necessarily be within the Greater York area, as it is defined on the plan on the board.
[speaker001:] The Greater York area coincides with that black circle roughly er on that on that map, and as you will see the Greater York area also coincides virtually with the whole of the greenbelt. Apart from the City of York and any other inset within it.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Perhaps I should also say that the panel has not made up it's mind yet about whether [LAUGHTER] there should or should not be [] a new settlement of course. We also talked about the new settlement being self-contained and integrated, but came I think to a consensus around the table that the level of employment provision in the new settlement should be related to the level of... employment supply in the new settlement as opposed to a level of employment which would satisfy employment needs
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Miss D Whittaker:] in inverted commas for the Greater York area. In other words, it's not an employment location, it is primarily a residential new settlement development which has some employment in it to satisfy employment needs of those who live there. Professor Lock is now looking very confused. My question was simply at the moment Professor Lock er am I clear, are you clear about that?
[Professor David Lock:] You're very clear in what you're saying
[speaker001:] Good point that yeah.
[Professor David Lock:] but erm, sorry the reason I'm raising my eyebrows is that the people who would come to live in the new settlement if it was to happen, are people who would otherwise have to live somewhere else in in the county
[Miss D Whittaker:] Yes indeed.
[Professor David Lock:] and so it seems to me that the erm really from the county's point of view, er to their advantage as it were, the employment land requirement stays the same. What you're just talking about is different patterns of its distribution that may occur.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Mm right.
[Professor David Lock:] Has is that is that fair too?
[Miss D Whittaker:] Thank you. Yes it is. On that basis, Mr Williamson, and on the basis that you propose and acknowledge others do not accept that this new settlement should at least in this plan period be for about fourteen hundred dwellings, what level of employment land provision can be taken out of the Greater York figure and assumed to be in the new settlement?
[Mr Ken Williamson:] can I ask Mr Potter.
[Mr David Potter:] Er David Potter, North Yorkshire County Council.
[Mr E Barnett:] Can you just s use the microphone and speak up Mr Potter please. People at the back can't hear.
[Mr David Potter:] David Potter, North Yorkshire County Council. Er the distribution within Greater York is based essentially on the Greater York study, which identified the number of sites in and around Greater York and allocated those to the appropriate districts. There is a residue of unidentified land of some thirteen hectares, based on our revised assessment based on nineteen ninety one. Erm that is considered to be er an element which make a contribution towards the new settlement.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Was that one three or three zero?
[speaker001:] One three.
[Mr David Potter:] One three.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Thank you.
[speaker001:] Mr Curtis.
[Mr E Barnett:] Sorry Mr Curtis before you come in can I just come back to you, er I just want to get this clear. Erm in realistic terms you can accommodate thirty three hectares of industrial land in the City of York. Now does your er assessed requirement, or your assessment of needs, still remain at sixty three hectares, and if it does if it does, is that all taken care off within the one hundred and forty five hectares for the Greater York figure? Or are we looking at possibly a larger figure now for Greater York?
[Mr David Curtis:] David Curtis, York City Council. No sir I I do accept first of all that the capacity of the city should remain at thirty three.
[Mr E Barnett:] Right.
[Mr David Curtis:] I accept that the fall within the hundred and forty five hectares.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yeah. Okay, thank you.
[Mr David Curtis:] Sir. What I would like to just er point out to the panel in terms of the earlier discussion the Senior Inspector was having about the sites around Greater York is that virtually without exception, well the two exceptions being the two hospital sites, I think all the other sites are actually our planning commitments so erm your comment about erm the longevity of the the greenbelt as it were, that virtually all those sites are actually committed in in one form or another, the only two sites which are not er committed really are the Naburn and Clifton hospital sites which are both inset within the greenbelt, well one is inset and one is subject to the normal P P G two er requirements for redevelopment of hospitals.
[Miss D Whittaker:] These sites are inside the city boundary or not?
[Mr David Curtis:] No they are, they lie they lie within the urban settlement of York but outside our boundary.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Thank you.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you. Miss Firth.
[Miss Fiona Firth:] Fiona Firth, Montague Evans. It's our view Chairman that the figure of a hundred and forty five hectares for the Greater York area is too high, erm the basis for that is the government guidance P P G twelve, paragraph five point one three, which says that the structure plan should provide a strategic framework for local plans development control and it should also indicate broad areas of restraint on development. Within Greater York the general philosophy embodied in both the Greater York study and the structure plan has been one of restraint. Erm the County Council's calculations identify the industrial B one land requirements to be on an economic activity base requirement, a hundred and two hectares and on a land-take basis a hundred and thirteen hectares, yet they're allocating a hundred and forty five hectares in the structure plan. Given the policy of restraint we believe that they should provide enough land to meet requirements, they shouldn't base their figure on past overtake. So therefore our contention that the figure should be reduced to a hundred and two hectares. If if they don't reduce that figure we feel that the oversupply will lead to green field sites being used where they shouldn't be. It also erm quite wrongly fuels justification for a new settlement proposal, because as they're saying there's a shortfall in allocations.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Bearing in mind the advice in P P G four in particular, about providing a range and a choice of employment opportunities, the fact that the last decade this part of the country's probably seen two recessions... and the need for flexibility,
[Miss Fiona Firth:] Mhm.
[Miss D Whittaker:] do you think your recommended a hundred and two hectares would cater for all those things?
[Miss Fiona Firth:] Well yes I do. There is a range of sites, there's a list of the different sites in the Greater York study, erm I've looked at most of those sites and they there there is a big range of sites both in size and location. Erm that period has also had a period of growth within it, and I feel that's a reasonable basis to go forward on.
[Mr E Barnett:] Do you care to comment, Mr Williamson?
[Mr Ken Williamson:] Thank you Chairman. Er Ken Williamson, County Council. Erm owing to the extent Chairman and I think erm we we have established er we were happy that the the level of development er rightly or wrongly as a as a commitment is already in excess of the hundred and two hectares being spoken about. I'd also just comment briefly on erm th the comments being made about restraint. Er it's never been the County Council's er objective or intention to restrain what are the genuine er employment needs of its local residents, erm and we feel that this level of allocation is suited to to the needs of the residents.
[Mr E Barnett:] After two thousand and six?... Mr Girt?
[Mr Dave Girt:] Dave Girt, Leeds City. I wonder if I could bring Mr Williamson back to the basic methodology of calculation of the overall requirement share. [clears throat] It seems to me two of the elements are lend themselves to some sort of arithmetical assessment an and the County's gone through at. Mr Williamson's pointed to other factors which have been taken into account, the local requirements as a as a advised to him by the district councils, but he hasn't mentioned the Secretary of State's advice in R P G two that North Yorkshire should take account of the strategic guidance for West Yorkshire in that calculation. I wonder if he could describe to us what influence that has been brought to bear on the the overall calculation?
[Miss D Whittaker:] I think it might be helpful Mr Girt if you could be a little more explicit about what in particular
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER] Yes.
[Miss D Whittaker:] you're getting at.
[Mr Dave Girt:] Well if I refer you, Dave Girt, Leeds City, if I refer you madam to the first paragraph of R P G 2 which is strategic planning guidance for West Yorkshire.
[Miss D Whittaker:] You have the benefit of us both I think up here, can you t
[Mr Dave Girt:] Well,per could I read the sentence which
[Miss D Whittaker:] Thank you.
[Mr Dave Girt:] I'm to quote then. It says [reading] the guidance has some implications for adjoining areas and neighbouring county and metropolitan district councils are asked to have to regard to it when reviewing and altering their statutory development plans [].
[Miss D Whittaker:] What do you interpret those implications as being?
[Mr Dave Girt:] Well I, I'm having some difficulty in keeping my remarks addressed to question A and not drifting into question B because obviously Leeds City Council and perhaps speaking for the rest of West Yorkshire's concerned about regeneration effects.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Is that as far as you can take us on your interpretation of what those implications are?
[Mr Dave Girt:] I don't want to l, Dave Girt, Leeds City, I don't want to make a meal of it, I mean the the theme of R P G two is about revitalizing
[Miss D Whittaker:] Yeah.
[speaker001:] Yeah.
[Mr Dave Girt:] West Yorkshire,i it's the central core of that strategy.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Right but isn't
[Mr Dave Girt:] S
[Miss D Whittaker:] isn't there a risk that if we don't keep a reasonable balance between employment and... employment demand and employment supply in North Yorkshire, we shall finish up for different reasons with a need to regenerate the economy of Yorkshire, North Yorkshire?
[Mr Dave Girt:] Dave Girt, Leeds City. Yes I think Leeds would be very happy to accept arguments erm based in part on the arithmetic, in part on the needs of the area. All I'm saying is, what account has been taken of that other ingredient, which is the strategic guidance for West Yorkshire? Mr Williamson didn't mention it in his description of the way he'd arrived, the County Council had arrived at their five hundred and odd hectares and er so far as West Yorkshire's aware, it's been ignored or so f as far as we're aware so far, it's been ignored. Now we're not arguing that the calculation should go beyond past land take-up and er counting the heads of those who would be employed, we w we would follow a similar process and we recognize that there are needs beyond that.
[Miss D Whittaker:] But you've argued... previously in this hall that North Yorkshire should provide for residential development at a level which would cater for a continuation of the past levels of migration.
[Mr Dave Girt:] Mm.
[Miss D Whittaker:] In the interests not least of Great of the Leeds Metropolitan Area? I'm still having a bit of difficulty reconciling those what you're saying with those sorts of lines put to us previously.
[Mr Dave Girt:] Dave Girt, Leeds City. Let me just clarify the line I've been arguing previously, and with Bradford. We both argued that the levels of er housing development in Craven, Harrogate and to a lesser extent perhaps Amblet Hambleton should not be constrained, so as to reduce erm the the steady trickle if I can describe it as that of migration from the West Yorkshire conurbation to those areas, in perhaps er l looking at the different proposal for the new settlement which might be located in the Leeds York corridor. We've argued that that would stimulate migration as opposed simply to accommodate past trends, so we've argued that, but the the problem for West Yorkshire well for Leeds in particular is that the brown field sites we have, the regeneration that we need is not of sites which would readily accommodate housing, they're not sites which lend themselves as nice places to live. They're almost always surrounded by existing long term industry, they're not the sorts of places we want Leeds residents to have to live in the future. And it's it's on the economic front that regeneration has the highest priority in Leeds and not on the housing front, as I as I've previously described. For housing purposes we've taken large chunks out of our greenbelt, signalling that in terms of regeneration, we don't have regeneration housing sites.
[Miss D Whittaker:] If you were County Planning Officer for North Yorkshire as well as for Leeds, how would you want the North Yorkshire structure plan changed?
[Mr Dave Girt:] Well I'd like, Dave Girt, Leeds City, I'd like s some recognition of West Yorkshire's problems to be evident in er the deliberations, which er at the moment it's it's absent, it may it may have been taken into account but it's absent in the exposition, and I I'd also like some erm indication that competing development would not be massed on the boundaries of Leeds, that the scales of er the the distribution of the employment land seems to be to be biased towards those districts which which border Leeds.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Sorry to press this but would you regard the provision of thirty three or forty six hectares in York and a hundred and five hectares in Greater York as being prejudicial to your interests in Leeds?
[Mr Dave Girt:] I'd, Dave Girt, Leeds City, I'd be er pleased to hear from Mr Williamson that the hundred and forty five hectares for Greater York is actually to be contained within the York greenbelt, I I think Leeds has misunderstood that point, perhaps misled by the way each one was worded and we've in previous days clarified that point so
[Miss D Whittaker:] Right. My understanding is that with the exception of the thirteen hectares which
[speaker001:] Yes. Mm.
[Miss D Whittaker:] er Mr Williamson has indicated would be the
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Miss D Whittaker:] the right sort of order of magnitude of allocation to the new settlement, the remainder of the hundred and forty five hectares would be within that ring on that plan. Are you happy?
[Mr Dave Girt:] Yes I a I think, Dave Girt, Leeds City. I think erm previously we misunderstood that point, we thought the hundred and forty five hectares was footloose in the same area of search for the settlement and
[speaker001:] No.
[Mr Dave Girt:] I'm I'm pleased that that's been clarified and er we understand that better now.
[speaker001:] Well that's not our understanding anyway, you know that it's footloose. I mean
[Mr Dave Girt:] Right, right.
[speaker001:] Yes we're clear.
[Mr Dave Girt:] Right. I I'm still a little bit puzzled about the thirteen hectares, is that footloose depending on where the settlement is placed if it's placed within Greater York?
[Miss D Whittaker:] The settlement er in all probability as we established yesterday morning, could not go within those few fields which are in the Greater York area and not in the greenbelt.
[speaker001:] Mm. Mm.
[Miss D Whittaker:] There are two small patches to the north of the city and looking at the plan again this morning there's one small patch
[speaker001:] Mm, mm.
[Miss D Whittaker:] to the south. We have certainly not confined the area of search for the new settlement
[speaker001:] to that
[Miss D Whittaker:] to those areas. As you know, if you heard the discussion yesterday which I believe you did, in accord with the County Council's criterion that it the new settlement should be within ten miles, we've widened the area of search to that ten mile radius.
[Mr Dave Girt:] Dave Girt, Leeds City. Th thank you for that madam, I I understand that better now. Still I think there are concerns for Leeds about the scale of employment land proposed in Selby for example, which seems to us significantly more than could be supported by the arithmetic calculation plus some kind of a sensible allowance, it seems to f to be excessively generous.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Yeah. Er obviously Mr Girt,
[Mr Dave Girt:] I think yes I think we've
[Miss D Whittaker:] we've concentrated on York and Greater York for the moment
[Mr Dave Girt:] Mm.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Erm
[Mr E Barnett:] We shall move the scene elsewhere. You'll get your chance again no doubt. Mr Cunnane,
[Miss D Whittaker:] Is it about York?
[Mr E Barnett:] Is it about York, or Tadcaster?
[speaker001:] N neither. [LAUGHTER] Selby. And it's a lot, I have a lot to say so it might be better to wait. Until after the break, I don't know. It's up to you.
[Mr E Barnett:] You want to shift the scene now to Selby District?
[speaker001:] Erm
[Miss D Whittaker:] Is well is there anything the other districts want to say
[speaker001:] Yeah.
[Miss D Whittaker:] about Greater York?
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr Smith. [cough] Ian Smith, Ryedale District. It's erm coming back to a point which Mr Curtis made about the amount of land identified in the Greater York study area, which is allocated but doesn't have a planning permission. Erm within Ryedale we've got thirty odd hectares of land which we've allocated for development in the period up to two thousand and six
[Miss D Whittaker:] In the Greater York area?
[Mr E Barnett:] In the Greater York area which doesn't have a current planning permission, and that's not including a redundant hospital site of another ten hectares.
[Miss D Whittaker:] So you re... you regard that as providing some flexibility?
[Mr E Barnett:] Well in er in terms of Ryedale yes. And as I say there i there is land there which is is er aimed to provide a range of sites up until the end of the structure plan period, within that part of the Greater York area.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Thank you.
[Mr Ken Williamson:] Michael Jewitt, Hambleton District Council. Erm as we're on Greater York I feel I ought to say something having a s small part of the Greater York area within Hambleton. Erm we don't expect to be making any meaningful contribution towards erm employment provision around Greater York, I'd refer you to er statements we made erm on erm the p on policy H one. Erm only three settlements in the area, very small, and it's unlikely that they're gonna meet meet an make any meaningful contribution to employment needs in Greater York.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you. Mr Mr Allenby, I I know you've made a submission but can we just clarify what provision is being made in Harrogate District which can be seen quite rightly as forming pa a contribution towards the Greater York?
[Mr David Potter:] Thank you Chairman, yes. The the total provision for Harrogate District is ninety hectares of which thirty hectares is allocated to Greater York and we support that allocation because it properly reflects the provision of a site which is already committed for industrial development. So it's a single site of thirty hectares which is committed by way of planning permission.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr Heselton.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Er [clears throat] Terry Heselton, Selby District. Er just for the record Chairman to confirm that Selby District has no argument with the County Council on the Greater York. How much can you provide in the Greater York area? There's [clears throat] I think it's approximately twenty six hectares identified, erm most of which is committed in one way or another. And that figure also coincides with the the estimated requirement figure that we've come up with independently for the Greater York area, within Selby District anyway. And that if my arithmetic is correct which it often isn't, takes us to
[speaker001:] hundred and nineteen
[Miss D Whittaker:] hundred and nineteen
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Miss D Whittaker:] hectares in Greater York. That will
[Mr E Barnett:] I'll just repeat that. Thirty hectares for Ryedale, thirty for Harrogate, twenty six Selby and thirty three York City. Mr Potter.
[Mr David Potter:] David Potter, David Potter North Yorkshire County Council. Erm we have been monitoring land availability since about nineteen eighty nine, nineteen ninety and our records for Ryedale show that there are approximately fifty hectares available. Some small sites within existing industrial areas are still available. Some small sites within existing industrial areas at Clifton and at er Pigeoncote particularly are available and undeveloped.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Well if they're within existing industrial areas, then they're not included in the I five provision are they?
[Mr David Potter:] They they are vacant sites, serviced and ready for development. They must make a contribution.
[speaker001:] [whispering] Never been developed. []
[Mr David Potter:] They've never been developed. They're vacant land. They're the the residue of partially developed sites.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Right. I understand, thank you.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr Smith. Yeah I just er want to reaffirm that. The figure I gave was on erm sites which were allocated
[speaker001:] allocated
[Mr E Barnett:] but had no planning permission, that wasn't including er I think twenty three hectares we've calculated which have erm outstanding planning permissions. So adding this extra twenty hectares identified within Ryedale, that takes us to a hundred and thirty nine hectares for Greater York. Yeah, yeah. I think it might be useful to break there so we can have coffee. Reconvene at eleven thirty then we'll I think we, unless somebody else wants to raise points on Greater York, Mr Curtis?
[Mr David Curtis:] David Curtis, York City Council. Sir I would just, I think it would help the panel if you will refer to table seventeen of erm N Y six which actually sets out these sites.
[Mr E Barnett:] Right.
[Mr David Curtis:] Erm, will help help you obviously totalling all the proportions up.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you. So reconvene at eleven thirty please. [break coffee] And let's turn our attention to Selby. Mr Cunnane, you indicated you wish to speak on that?
[speaker001:] Yes.... Yes please Chairman erm J Cunnane, J C Cunnane Associates. Erm I have a number of points to make but what I intend to do is to er very briefly outline them and then see where we go from there if that's acceptable. Er I would like to say at the outset that erm we we support the deposit version of the er the deposit version allocations of the alteration. We think they are about right, they would provide for an appropriate level of development. Erm I I should also say that for the for the record that erm we accept the Greater York figures and regard them as also acceptable. Er turning now to er land allocation with particular reference to Selby. Erm it is our position that we would support and regard as as the best approach one based on past land take-up. Erm and there is an important planning principle which er I would like to draw attention to in in this in in in the approach that we adopt and where we differ from Selby. The Selby approach seems to me to be er look at the land that is allocated which amounts to approximately a hundred hectares in the district and discount a great deal of it because it's constrained in some way or another, and I'll come back to those constraints later. But I simply want to make the the point of planning principle that you don't as a matter of approach walk away from constrained sites and say, ah well we don't like that because there's some constraint, we'll go and we'll reallocate an another piece of land somewhere else, and er that'll come forward more easily. If you adopt that approach it is inevitable that there's going to result dereliction and sterilization of land. And that approach er to in er in that sense is is totally unacceptable. However, it is the approach that Selby appeared to adopt. Turning now to the question of allocating land on the basis of need. It is appears to be accepted in principle by Selby in paragraph two point eight of their submission, that they do actually accept this approach. [cough] However, they they say that it i b it is unacceptable because it er pays insufficient regard to loss of jobs and the future role of manufacturing and service industry. As I understand the way need has been calculated, and the County will correct me if I'm wrong on this, er the method does actually take account of unemployment, and it sets an eventual employment level of three percent as a goal. And erm for that reason, er I wouldn't accept that the that that approach is is er inappropriate on that basis. The second point I would make on the criticism that Selby make of the need erm assessment is they say that it doesn't erm take adequate cognizance of manufacturing and service employment. As I understand the allocations, they don't seek to differentiate between different types of employment within the business use class, erm and for that reason equally I would regard that submission that it's an unacceptable approach as as invalid. Er Mr Potter this morning very fairly said to this erm t to the panel that if you do his need assessment which i if you got to the the exercise and stretch every parameter to its very limits, be as generous as you can on every possible criterion, you can get to an allocation for Selby of a hundred and twenty two hectares. Selby are looking for an allocation of twice that, and if you a if you accept that the County are correct and I can see no reason to to erm to vary from that, in fact our submissions er set out very clearly why we think every parameter is stretched to its limits,i if you st i if you accept that then at the very least I think its incumbent upon Selby to put forward a cogent argument for doubling that figure. The reason for that is that it is we are operating in a in an environment of planning policy restraint. We are not a West Yorkshire or a South Yorkshire er polic in a in a West Yorkshire or a South Yorkshire policy regime. And for that reason, need, local need, should be catered for, unemployment sh obviously should be catered for but a growth strategy which seeks to double the allocation without any justification is inevitably going to lead to one of two things, it is going to draw in in economic activity from outside, and it is likely that that will be from areas of regeneration, or it will lead to commuting. Either of those two approaches are unacceptable in principle in policy terms. However, turning turning to Selby's demand led approach which I would call it, and I think that is erm how they themselves in fact describe it, they have set a level of two hundred and two hundred to two hundred a fifty hectares based on demand, and as I understand it there is no assessment of job need or job demand to back that requirement. There is no cognizance taken of the advice in P P G twelve, paragraph five point four four, which says that [reading] it is right to have a flexible approach er with a range of sites available to business to be provided in plans, and authorities will want to ensure that in allocating sites there is a reasonable expectation of development proceeding []. Well I would have thought that if there was to be some assessment of a reasonable expectation of development proceeding, then there ought to be some assessment of demand, and I haven't seen that yet. It is suggested also in Selby's submissions that demand has been frustrated in their paragraphs three point two one to three point two five, but again no evidence has been submitted of that, that I have seen. Selby enjoy partially part part of their area enjoys assisted area status, part of it enjoys objective two status, it is an area where land is cheap, it is an area where there is a plentiful supply of labour, and yet the past allocation in the structure plan has not been taken up. The submission that Selby make on the basis of constraints, of which I've referred to earlier, Are you to my mind they're no different to the constraints that one would experience in any other planning area. Erm, I'm not sure whether it would be appropriate for me to go through the the table now and look at the constraints, or whether it might be better to leave that until after I've finished my overall remarks. [cough] Yes okay. Er my next point is that it has t this panel has to consider the implications of the Selby go for growth approach which I would call it, and I don't think Selby differ from that, I think Selby are embarked on a a a a policy of growth, that the implications of that policy have to be con taken into consideration in relation to housing in particular, erm and it is apparent that if the allocation is doubled then there is unquestionably going to be a housing implication arising from that, and whether that would fit in with policies H one and H two.... Hous yes I think that deals with erm my main points other than to say,t to repeat er very very briefly because Mr Curtis made the point already, that there is an implication er for this in in this growth strategy for er effect on regeneration in West Yorkshire in particular. Er now I do have as I say some detailed points on constraints and things but perhaps I'll leave those for the moment.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Mr Cunnane I think it may be helpful, bearing in mind that you do not support the proposed level for housing provision in Selby to try to as isolate that element from our discussion.... To what extent if if you accept the... County Council's proposed housing provision for Selby, and I appreciate that's hypothetical but I er I think it would help me to get this element isolated from our discussion, otherwise we may go round in ever decreasing circles. What level of employment land provision would you support in Selby?
[speaker001:] I would assume that the County Council's assessment of need at a hundred and twenty two hectares does take cognizance of the s the anticipated growth in housing. And I'll obviously be corrected on that if I'm er I'm getting an an affirmative nod from Mr Potter. So erm on on the basis on the assumption on the assumption that you've put to me, then I would be prepared to accept that a hundred and twenty two hectares would be a reasonable level.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you.
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Miss D Whittaker:] Thank you that's helpful.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr Heselton.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Well I wondered er Terry Heselton, Selby District. I wondered if it would er be appropriate for me to respond at this juncture?
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes.
[Miss D Whittaker:] As er set out in in my written submission, Selby District clearly doesn't support either of the er alternative methods of of calculating em employment land. I'll I'll deal with them both first. In respect of past land-take. I feel this is completely unrealistic, because basically er demand has been thwarted by existing land shortages. In a nutshell the approved structure plan seriously underestimated the employment needs of the district, and it allocated only forty six hectare for a fifteen year period. What this means in essence when when you look at the geography of of the district is that it imposes severe restrictions on where you can distribute reasonable sized employment allocations around the district. And the other thing you have to bear in mind is that at the time the original structure plan was drawn up, they weren't talking about the er the structural employment problems that we are at the moment. In fact I think it's true to say that when the forty six hectare figure wa was agreed, it was known that the coal field was coming and er I think time has shown hasn't brought anything like the number of jobs or economic