[Eric Barnett:] The erm session this morning Erm to try to say other than the district council and that is the council What I'd like from If we take for example the low figure thirty one K, the county figure and the H B F figure of.... What is the for example.
[speaker002:] I think it should be addressed sir that your amplification is nonexistent.
[Eric Barnett:] Did you miss the question?
[speaker002:] I just heard.
[Margaret Rees:] chairman shall I put my [LAUGHTER] head on head on the block. Margaret, Department of the Environment. Erm I have to say that that these are largely my personal views of the member of the regional office, rather than obviously the Secretary of State at this stage in the proceedings. But I think if you went for the figure as proposed by the H B F, you would be going actively against the regeneration statutory which is the erm the government's policy. If you look at the strategic guidance for West and South Yorkshire, and I fully admit that we still have to see the erm the colour of regional guidance. But the strategic guidance for those two counties very firmly puts economic regeneration at the head of the list of objectives. I think if you let development rip for the want of a better word in North Yorkshire, as I suggest the House Builders Federation would do, then it would be active acting against the regeneration strategy. As for the figure proposed erm by Samuel Smith's representative. I think probably that is at completely the other end of the spectrum, and would be stifling the natural growth in North Yorkshire and what you would be doing then is is acting against the erm the inhab the existing inhabitant of North Yorkshire because you would probably be forcing them out of their county. I would therefore go for as you well know in our figure, somewhere around the middle line.
[R Whittaker:] Do you difference between your figure and that of the County Council is critical in in anyway?
[Margaret Rees:] I think our figure gives a rather more measure of flexibility than does that of the County Council....
[Dave Girt:] Setting aside the exact figures chair, I think Leeds position is that left late at the goalposts set down by R P G two, erm our members are the City Council's grasped the mettle of accommodating the level of accommodation that that implies. It would make very significant incursions into our much against our wishes, to accommodate that, so that we would be looking to North Yorkshire to and work to the same levels of migration, the trend in migration as it were. Obviously a figure higher than that would take some pressure of us to make those incursions into the green belt, a lower figure conversely would require us to make higher la larger incursions into our greenbelt. So we're looking for North Yorkshire to play to the same rules basically.
[Eric Barnett:] You you have already erm done it going into the greenbelt. Am I right in thinking that you wouldn't want to go on with these incursions?
[Dave Girt:] That's right, our position is that we've already... erm adversely affected our environment if you like as and the balanced er approach respectively needs to meet housing requirements. Erm but we've gone as far as we feel we need to. Erm other people should have to make the same sacrifices.
[R Whittaker:] But what are you saying about?
[Dave Girt:] I'm not making any comment on specific figures.
[R Whittaker:] I'd like you to
[Dave Girt:] Well I can I decline the invitation. I I don't have a an answer an arithmetic answer. I think a figure was quoted earlier, I haven'read the of the with migration estimate for North Yorkshire. With that was a hundred percent a hundred percent migration.
[Eric Barnett:] K was the figure.
[Dave Girt:] Right.
[Eric Barnett:] Which is very similar to your colleague on the right..
[Dave Girt:] Well a all I'm saying chair is that the principle of the calculation is is what I'm pleading on behalf on behalf of the City Council to be met.
[Eric Barnett:] Mr.
[W Caulfield (bill):] Er yes, Bill, Bradford Council. Erm Bradford and Leeds have er adopted a similar approach in their representations to er yourselves and certainly er I did not come here to take a er a part in the debate over specific figures. Er we er accepted the County Councils er sets of figures where we took issue with them is erm the failure to take account of one hundred percent inward migration trends. Not what that figure is or or what period it would be. But that percentage figure. Erm er on that basis erm... we... would and and even allowing for even allowing for a dense movement from Bradford to North Yorkshire, erm we as it said in our statements, are happy that that movement will not hinder urban regeneration in the urban area of the Bradford Metropolitan district. We refer too er in our statement er an absolute release figure of hectares in the greenbelt, and that is a percentage of our new housing allocations. In addition to that, it might interest you to know that er in excess of a further one hundred and sixty hectares of land is in our U D deposit version, U D P proposed to be released on greenfield sites on the edge of the built up areas. And that is in excess of fifty percent of the new housing allocation. Erm we in our recommendation to you have suggested a figure of forty six thousand, two hundred. Which is would give you County Council. Er su suffice We didn't want to get into too much of a discussion about numbers. If you the trends then er going on to the... going on to the... House Builders Federation figures, that would not cause us to release more land within the greenbelt, as would the lower figure of the County Council, based on seventy five percent inward migration. And by implication, the thirty nine thousand figure. Erm certainly the low figure would cause us tremendous problems er environmental problems of our own. Erm forty six thousand figure we feel is acceptable in that we still have to make environmental releases in the greenbelt, but erm the net outward movement would not hinder our urban regeneration. Erm the higher figure would obviously lead to bring into question something that er Miss has mentioned about er urban regeneration. Erm I think erm both the low and the high figures would cause us problems, and that is why we have have accepted the County Council's figures based on continuation of past trends, migration trends, which as my colleague from Leeds has pointed out earlier we are obliged to do and are continuing to do in following from R P G two in our depopulation of the.
[R Whittaker:] I think it maybe has to be said that we we picked these figures, not because we wanted to talk about the figures, but simply to use them as for you to hang on to.
[Eric Barnett:] Mr.
[Roy Donson:] Yes, Roy, House Builders Federation. Erm naturally enough you wouldn't expect me to agree with Miss that erm the figures that we've put forward are against the regeneration strategy. It's certainly true, I don't think that we're letting development rip. However erm one thing I think that's got to be borne in mind and it picks up a point that erm Leeds have made, is that they're looking towards trendy migration, they say. With their balance of things. It has to be said that the current U D P of Leeds makes er an a an allowance of migration of net out migration of just over about nine thousand three hundred per five year period. That's embodied within the plan. If you look at the revised mid-year estimate, the figure there if we're keeping things in balance between county and and Leeds, is six thousand two hundred and fifty, net out migration. So there's if we're keeping things in balance, there's three thousand people per five year period, got to go somewhere. Now if on the same basis, you at the same time reduce the amount that the county's taking in, that exacerbates that particular group. And indeed I would submit that Leeds would find it difficult to actually accommodate the migration assumption which is w would be implied by sticking to the revised plan, mid-year estimate figure. I think that they would find it quite difficult to actually do that er without very many incursions into the greenbelt. Bradford, the position is not quite so stark. But nevertheless, they're very much as I see it, on the border. Er and the their U D P's just on deposit so got to go into it in a bit more detail yet. But it would seem to me that er there may be a marginal undersupply in Bradford on the basis of the current U D P and that is assuming that we we have the same balance between Bradford and between North Yorkshire as I am implying from my my particular figures. Erm I see nothing in the current Bradford U D P which suggests that they aren't erm majoring on urban regeneration, that they're doing they're doing exactly that. And so I would say that the whole thing, the figures that I'm proposing, er and the consequences for both Leeds and Bradford er would be in fact to maintain a balanced strategy for urban regeneration. And it does seem to me that erm I can't quite understand why it's possible or it seems to be an argument that you can accommodate a bit more development, squash a bit development into Leeds and Bradford and it doesn't matter very much. But you can not accommodate more development in North Yorkshire. those two things to me don't seem to be compatible. Certainly I think we're in very great danger of Leeds Bradford, if we start pushing things a great deal more. Erm it is part of our strategy of course erm that we are not er pursuing a hundred percent migration. So we are assuming a little bit more Bradford and Leeds but not erm la particularly large amounts.
[Eric Barnett:] Do you do you want to comment on the lowest figure?
[Roy Donson:] Well the lowest figure, erm we've already got a level of commitment, we have to have three thousand de-allocations if that was the case, that does not seem to me to be correct. No.
[R Whittaker:] What happens to the housing market people... if?
[Roy Donson:] Erm that that I think relates to I think there are two important points t to make here in relation to forty one thousand. Erm I I said some the this this morning that in fact I think there would be serious affordable hou affordable housing problems er associated with that figure. And I think also we shouldn't overlook the em employment in Leeds that would be related to that. Not only employment in terms of the relationship between proposed industrial allocations and housing allocations, but the purest employment er problems of the construction industry as well. It's interesting that no no other than Tony M P Secretary of State, speaking at the conference, Building on Success, said that the erm construction industry accounts for a tenth of our National G D P. Er the industry is responsible for half our fixed investment and accounts for a third of our manufacturing base. It is therefore a critical component of our national economy and its good health is essential to our recovery from the downturn. I will take it from that that you play with it at this stage er of a recovery. Erm and erm I don't think that on the to go on about affordable housing as I did this morning, I don't think that in fact the affordable housing targets which the different authorities have and although I've only quoted four authorities I think, I think the other ones will be very much the same. I don't think that erm... it will be possible to meet those affordable targets on the lower numbers. That simply people will miss out. They are not the only people who'll miss out, there'll be people at the lower end of the housing market who could afford to buy. Well if you take the the figures that It depends where they are to some extent.
[R Whittaker:] I'm sorry
[Roy Donson:] Yeah. On the affordable housing front?
[R Whittaker:] Or any other front.
[Roy Donson:] Any ot any other front. A on on on on the general issue,. But erm er on on on the figures that I've I've submitted, erm we've already got three of those five districts have got s fairly high affordable housing percentage requirements. And with Ryedale still at thirty eight percent, these are on my figures. Scarborough twenty one percent, probably getting towards okay. And York at twenty five percent. So meeting halfway, meeting that halfway house figure I think, erm would only seek to push up those figures. And you would only you you Yes you'd meet more of the affordable requirement no doubt, than you would at the lower figures, but in my view, you'd still be left with some fairly substantial problems in particular areas.
[R Whittaker:] What housing effects of the housing market? You concentrated on?
[Roy Donson:] Well in in in in in in some ways erm I've I've I've covered er some some of that point by referring to the to the importance of the construction industry. We have been and some would still have us believe, I think it's true, we're not out of the woods yet as far as er er recovery of the housing market is concerned. Er we've been in the longest recession in the housing market I think in memory. I think if not ever. Erm and there is still a need to supply houses to meet the needs of household formation. In the meanwhile while houses have not been built, people still go on forming households. And there is out there I'm very sure, a great un-met demand. Erm and if there is an undersupply, a serious undersupply, then sections of the market are bound to miss out. Erm whether whether that's just affordable or or whatever. And the ma market will become targeted to particular sectors and particular groups. And one effect of the recession has been, I've got to say, that a lot of the old that er house-builders have operated on, which are good for selling, which sites will sell well, etcetera a lot of those rules have been out of the window. There's a great air of uncertainty and erm... we have to be very cautious about proposing housing numbers which mean there'll be very few new sites, which will be the implication of forty one thousand two hundred. There'll be very very few new sites being formed, the inevitable consequence of that will be to push land prices up. Land prices are already rising at the moment er in this region, even though house prices are not rising at a commensurate level. And so that will have its effect in the fullness of time. And certainly if you keep housing numbers in short supply, the only effect will be to push land prices even higher.
[Stephen Grigson:] Thank you sir, Stephen from. I think our view of the effects of numbers significantly lower than the ones that we've put to you, is first of all that there are a number of factors which planning cannot influence and will not influence. And I would include in those, the vacancy issue that we discussed this morning, so there will be more vacant dwellings whether it's a percent of thirty thousand or fifty thousand. There is the improvement in mortality. I don't think planning has any influence or would wish to have any influence on that. There is the tendency towards higher headship rates and more household formation. And I don't think planning will have much influence on that. So with one proviso, I would say that that households will form whatever number of dwellings you write into the structure plan, those households will form in North Yorkshire. So if they don't have sufficient dwellings to meet the requirements, two things and I would expect them both two things, would happen. First of all, and I put this purely in order of er semantics rather than priority. First of all I don't think local needs would be fully met, as you know I think very often the migrants are able to outbid local households in the market, so I don't think local needs will be fully met. and indeed in terms of the low figure of of of thirty one thousand it it's statistically conceivable that no local needs would be met. But I think the way that that would occur would be first of all I would expect to see an increase, a steeper increase than is already project I should say in concealed households. I would also expect to see as a result of local shortages, more sharing of dwellings, by households who have formed not the same of concealed households who haven't succeeded in. And I should say on that topic that we looked prior to this E I P at the implications for sharing of the paper that er Miss put before you in her personal capacity. And our best interpretation as far as we could tell from that of course that was that the implied increase in sharing, because sh assumes that households with dwelling was about between four and five times the present sorry nineteen ninety one level share in the county. And to give you a measure of what that would mean, it would be a return to the conditions of the late forties, early fifties as regards sharing in North Yorkshire is concerned. So there is a very considerable backward step. And that will be one of the implication lower figures. But that local needs heading is one heading, the other heading which I think would be unavoidable is erm on migration. I would expect to see the lower figures resulting in as indeed they themselves imply, lower migration movements to North Yorkshire and indeed I think the figures from er might end up by the end of the period as net outward movement from North Yorkshire to be achieved, given the level of commitments we have up front. And if we look at the implications er West Yorkshire which were touched on in the beginning of this part of the debate. It seems to me unavoidable that one of the consequences would be to take more greenbelt land in West Yorkshire. And in that sense the choice at this E I P is whether to use greenbelt in West Yorkshire, or non-greenbelt in North Yorkshire. And I think to an extent those two are two ends of the seesaw and is a straight er choice that has to be made. You'll not be surprised to find that in terms of national policy, I would have thought that was very clear if you were given that choice, what the policy should be. I'm not aware that it's national policy that greenbelt should be used for the sake of urban regeneration. I think that I would see the consequences of the lower figures as being twofold. Severe impact on local need, and also substantial impact on migration, with particular in West Yorkshire.
[J Cunnane:] Erm s s several points I'd like to make. Er it's been suggested by Mr from the H B F that as I understand his suggestion, that a lower provision of housing land in some way affects affordability or affects the er access to housing for the lower se lower ends of the lower income households. Erm there is no evidence Well I've seen no evidence, first of all to substantiate that claim, and in my opinion, all the evidence suggests that the key determinant of house prices and therefore land prices is the ration of income to the price of the property. And in fact housing is more affordable now, than it has been for twenty five or thirty years. When we are in as Mr himself agrees, the worst housing recession probably this this century. So I would seriously question that you can make the sort of relationship that is suggested here, between affordability and increasing the numbers. I don't think the link is proven and I would certainly like to see evidence to substantiate that suggestion. Getting back to the numbers, Mr says that if the number suggested by ourselves, through our client of thirty one K were er adhered to that it may well reduce the ability completely of locals to gain access to the housing market. Well I think the figures agree that the requirement for local need is sixteen thousand five hundred, about half the thirty one K suggestion. And again there is a suggestion put forward to support this theory that local people won't have access to housing, and the suggestion is that ou that migrants have the ability to outbid locals. Well I have no see no evidence for that suggestion, and I think if the panel are going to accept this suggestion, then evidence or some some sort of information should be put forward to to to to back it, because I don't accept that it's it's necessarily the case. Erm the the beginning and the end of this argument is about migration. There is enough land to provide for local needs, more than twice enough. It's about pr p provision for migration and what the policy should be for that. And that brings me to the point that was made er by Mr and others on the other side of the table, that the structure plan does have a policy of a continued reduction in migration. That is a policy of the approved structure plan. We're not talking about reviewing the structure plan, we're talking about an alteration to it. And there is no s support round the table so far for the H B F figure of fifty three K. As I understand the Leeds position, they want what they call a lev a level playing field, or to be aiming at the same goalposts that they've been aiming at for the last number of years. But that would only support forty six thousand two hundred. Which is the North Yorkshire structure plan unconstrained figure. So with those erm policy points and those questions about the ab ability of migrants to outbid locals, and the ac housing access issue, I would erm suggest that if they're to be accepted by the panel, then more information is.
[R Whittaker:] What do you feel indicates the County Council's proposals.
[J Cunnane:] Erm the figure the County Council have proposed in my opinion, doesn't achieve a sufficient level of reduction. It goes in the right direction in so far as it does aim to re to continue to reduction in migration, but it doesn't go far enough. And I take the view that the Unity Development Plans for Leeds and Bradford do tend to me to suggest that there is the ability to meet an increasing amount of need in within their own areas and that that should be reflected in a continually reducing er export if I can call it that, to North Yorkshire, and this morning we heard from Cleveland that Cleveland are making gallant efforts to er to er retain their economic er viability by retaining their population. So I would say that the North Yorkshire er figure in summary, goes in the right direction but not far enough.
[R Whittaker:] What is it that happens on the ground that in your view makes it not far enough?
[J Cunnane:] The release of green fields in Yorkshire for urbanization, when that l that housing could be provided by urban regeneration in the adjoining metropolitan areas. And to my mind that is a fundamentally flawed planning strategy. The release the release of green fields should only happen when there is no other solution. And here we have a county which is taking sixty percent of its housing requirement from outside its boundaries. When I am not convinced that those er the areas outside those boundaries which are in dire need of urban regeneration, could not accommodate a greater proportion over over the planned period.
[Eric Barnett:] Bearing in mind, bearing bearing in mind Mr 's assessment of, how do you assess the realistic chance of actually.
[J Cunnane:] I don't think you I don't think you will be able to stop at that figure, I think that the allocation should stop at that figure, but there will be windfalls and there will be other er recycling of land that will take place that isn't already allocated. And it comes back to my point about the allocation of green fields and the there should be no more of that because there's already enough allocated. But I wouldn't for one moment suggest to the panel that windfalls and recycling of land shouldn't continue to take place.
[R Whittaker:] But if you recycle land already used by housing, you don't necessarily get any more or any fewer dwellings.
[J Cunnane:] Yes but you tend not to get recycling of housing land of housing, you tend to get recycling of housing land, new housing land from outworn industries, nonconforming use, that type of erm recycling is just what I had in mind. And that's what tends to happen. It's it's unusual these days bearing in mind the the government advice on planning policies for existing housing to be redeveloped. Unless of course it's er high rise housing housing in in in urban areas and of course in that in those scenarios you do get a big reductions in the number of.
[R Whittaker:] pitched at twenty one thousand, could. Means that provision has to be.
[J Cunnane:] No because section fifty four A and all section fifty four A says is that a decision should be made on a planning application, in accordance with the development plan. If the development plan said, Thou shalt not develop that green field, if it was not allocated in the development plan, then section fifty four A would er would work very well. Erm and of course section fifty four A does admit or taking into considera taking into account other material considerations. Erm for example, I have been involved in a site in North Yorkshire, er where it is proposed to build a hundred and sixty houses in Tadcaster. And the provision for the county is well over the allocations in the structure plan already, but the County Council, sent observations to the District Council to say, We're not going to object to this particular er windfall site coming forward for a hundred and sixty houses, because it's recycling existing urban land, and in that case we can set the policy to one side. So there is the ability to set policy to one side of the circumstances dictate. Sorry could you that again?
[R Whittaker:] What do you think that does for?
[J Cunnane:] I think the credibility of the planning system is enhanced by the fact that decisions can be made on individual circumstances. That policy isn't a straitjacket. It's plann i Planning is now policy led yes, but but but er planning isn't a slave to policy. If policy can be set to one side then it is set to one side and I think it enhances the reputation of of the system....
[P Sedgewick:] , Michael and Partners. I think my first point is that the answer to your question depends to some extent on what population what demographic forecasts prove to be most likely. Because the f the county's forty one thousand figure I I'll give you a different answer on th on the effect of that if the H B F's forecasts are the most accurate,. So it's I'm taking the the question in that light.... If the bottom end of the population projections are implemented in terms of planning requirement. [tape change] if the planning if if the requirements fall much below the demographic requirements, the implication is that migration could be controlled but it may be controlled by a mechanism which I don't think anybody really wants and that's by stimulating out migration in North Yorkshire. Because you are talking about net migration flows. To increase out migration will selectively erm encourage those people least able to compete probably the the the the younger section, the seventeen to twenty ei twenty four year age group which we already know are there's a net out migration flow. We'd encourage those to leave the county. Obviously the housing requirements should not be such as to generate harm to environmental interests. We've heard in introduction Mr Mr say that the County Council would not like to see housing requirements any lower than they have proposed. I take I take that to be that that is the bottom end of a of a range. Cos I I think there must be a range. The question of the relationship with other areas in the adjoining counties. I think that is more a question of distribution within districts than overall district levels. Harrogate and Hambleton for instance are large districts, they extend many miles from North to South, development concentrated around the metropolitan areas will draw out commuters. But there is a strict limit to the distance, well not a strict limit but commuting is sensitive to distance. So annotations in Central and Southern Hambleton would not have an effect on Cleveland. The in fact looking at Hambleton's figures, one can see that it's only really [clears throat] it's only really the top North West, I'm sorry the top North East. Erm Stoakesly, Hunten, Rugby area that does prove attractive to to communities. And I don't think the I don't think the the overall scale of that issue is one which needs to reduce the strategic requirement on Hambleton. That can be dealt with at a local plan level by distribution within the district. The same applies much to Harrogate as well.
[Eric Barnett:] You're effectively saying that
[P Sedgewick:] Yes....
[Eric Barnett:] Mr.
[speaker002:] Yes thank you sir. Er just a points er I think it it you probably had this point clear in your mind anyway but there are different rules that apply as between West Yorkshire and Cleveland. North Yorkshire. One area's in in need of urban regeneration and pressing for growth, and one area's subject to a policy of restraint. So I don't think it's a case of geese and ganders, I think it's a case of distinguishing between the different strategic policies that apply. Erm I think this whole issue is going to boil down to the your assumptions on migration. If one goes to answer your question, to the top end of the range being put before you, the effect will be to release probably more than a thousand acres of greenfield land er for housing development purposes. And that I would suggest is not a policy that's consistent er for that with tempered restraint. Erm you will also in going for the higher end of the range, er be prejudicing the urban regeneration objectives of those neighbouring districts. Erm there are two further points that commit discussion just taking place. And one is about the effect of the reduction of a s the migration assumptions. It clearly will not take immediate effect, there is a lot of housing allocations and permissions in the pipeline as it were, so it will take some while for it to wash through the system. Er my final point sir is concern with perhaps a few emotional points being made to my right about the old and the infirm and the young not being able to afford houses. Erm this County Council is proposing to allocate significantly more housing for in migrants than for local needs. Er which in my view is quite a rarity. Erm there are other policies in any event which one can use at local and structure plan level to secure social housing provision if it's required. But I would also like to pick up the point that Mr said, there is no evidence to suggest there's a massive problem of the local residents of North Yorkshire er not being able to compete with people in other counties to the North and to the West. Er there's with no evidence of an oversupply, my suggestion is that the decision you must be taking is to what degree do you assume er to what degree do you er recommend a reduction in migration rates. And I would suggest sir that somewhere between the lower end of the figures cooked on my left here and the County Council's figures. So I feel the County Council haven't sufficient reflected in their assumption on migration rates, the degree of reductions required to to obtain that balance between er preserving their strategic policies of restraint and respecting erm the urban regeneration policies in neighbouring areas.
[R Whittaker:] Can I the H B F. H B F's assessment that there are about thirty one thousand dwellings already committed in one way or another in the system. I haven't looked at the details of those figures, but are there predominantly be provided in the first ten years of the structure plan. The implication of any figure, indeed the County Council's figure for the last five years of the structure plan, could be characterized as putting the brakes on so hard, that the passengers all fall off the train. I'm being provocative. Mr, is that not the case.
[speaker002:] I think probably the County Council are in a better position than me er to to advise you as to whether that thirty one thousand commitment figure is true of not, but if it were the case, then I think, Yes I would agree that erm the train would stop very quickly, and in view of the situation that we're now in, there would have to be a degree of future flexibility to allow for phased reduction in development over future years. But I do not believe that one goes as far as going to the figure that the County Council is proposing. I would like to have a check of that commitments figure.
[R Whittaker:] Er the County Council's given us a figure of roughly about twenty five, twenty six thousand.
[speaker002:] Well I mean
[R Whittaker:] That still puts the brakes on pretty hard doesn't it, if you stick it in a figure less than thirty one thousand in the last five years.
[speaker002:] Well it's a question of balance I I the forty one thousand figure in my view should come down by a few thousand to reflect constraints in specific areas, I won't go into that now cos it's a separate discussion later on. But I believe the figure should be erm a few thousand below erm the forty one thousand and to that extent I would agree with you that in practical terms erm it's going to be very difficult even if the figure is twenty five, twenty six thousand, to stick to thirty one. But there is a question there is a p another point here that having got to the position we're in, erm does it How much are we going to be affected by the extent of the commitments? How much are we going to e judging what the true policy should be and how much are we going to be affected by those commitments figures? Erm if the if the figure were for example forty one thousand, er would you still say that there should we'd be putting the brakes on the train on too hard? I let's say there are forty five thousand yet the figures are forty one thousand, well where does one stop. How far are we going to be driven by commitments.
[R Whittaker:] I interpret commitments as being inescapable and therefore they're going to happen.
[speaker002:] I think the question remains or that my doubts remain that there will be a level of there will that one can assume a level of commitments which would be it would be sensible to try and draw back from or phase over a longer period of time.
[Eric Barnett:] It may not be possible to phase
[speaker002:] Mm. Well I have taken your point I think thirty one thousand's too is too small.
[Eric Barnett:] Mr do you want to come in at this stage?... Peter, North Yorkshire County Council. I think the position on residential land supply in the county is set out in er N Y four, paragraphs thirty five to thirty seven. And in general terms they're something of the order of twenty five and a half thousand swellings committed to development in the county, together with three and a half thousand erm in in in draft local plans. Our experience generally in North Yorkshire's been over the last ten years that overall, there have been exceptions, but generally overall, there's not been a problem about local plans drying up and then allocations drying up over the period, generally. There have been problems with one or two areas but it hasn't been a a a general problem. In Paragraph thirty five er er er three, the sites allocated in adopted local plans and of course a number of those will be with us and available toward the back end erm of the local plan er program. So we're talking there for about something of the order of twenty nine thousand develop erm dwellings committed in one form or other er in North Yorkshire. Mr I think suggested that er on the basis of the level of commitment, in North Yorkshire, when he looked at the County Council's forty one thousand, that no new sites will come forward, well quite clearly that's not going to be the case, there is a substantial residue er which are going to come forward. Can I make some general comments on the three scenarios that you that you put to us. Well I was just wondering whether I could reserve that for sort of summing up Right. Certainly that that's fine. But can can I can I just come back to the point that... if you were taking the lowest figure, I mean how realistic is it to assume that you could actually hold to that? Well if you're asking My interpretations on the Mm. on the the light of the commitments of which a substantial amount are act actually planning permission, and some four thousand odd will actually have been built since ninety one. Mm. Then you it'll be extremely difficult The the the County Council You don't have to do it now. Yeah. The County Council, if we're talking about Mr 's erm strategy, the County Council would have severe reservations about going down towards thirty one thousand dwellings, we've got twenty nine thousand dwellings erm already committed er I think it would create difficulties over the period that the the structure plan er would run, would create undue tension certainly in er er in settlements across North Yorkshire, on the basis of seeing an absence of land being allocated. Er I don't think thirty one thousand is a practical proposition for North Yorkshire. Though I have no instruction on that, but almost certainly that would be the view of my council. Yeah, thank you. Mr do you want to come back on that?
[Roy Donson:] Er yes, Roy, House Builder's Federation. I'd just like to pick up the point that's been made twice that there's no such thing as an affordable housing problem. What was P P G three revised all about if it wasn't about er the issue of affordable housing? And no less a light than Sir George Young actually said that the provision of affordable housing is one of the challenges of the nineties, and we are serious about rising to this challenge. And very much more recently, Lord Shuttleworth who is the chairman of the rural development commission, and this he said actually on the sixteenth of November this year, said, There is a severe lack of affordable housing in the countryside which obviously doesn't improve the situation. The biggest problem tends to be with young people, they will either go to live with someone else, or move from the countryside altogether. Now there we have some fairly eminent people recognizing that there is such a thing as an affordable housing problem. Yes houses have never been so affordable, but confidence equally, has never been so low. And in this particular county one has only got to look to Ryedale who s I so far as I know is the only authority to have carried out a comprehensive survey of local housing needs. And there they have identified after commitments, some five hundred affordable housing requirements. That's taking away all the commitments. Now it seems to me obvious that there is such a problem, er and to deny it seems to me to be to be denying the obvious. Erm the planning system, as now conceived works it's it's intended as far as I am aware, to work on the basis of certainty. If we have such a low requirement that it can be met from windfalls, small sites and recycling land above commitments, then that is not certainty, that is uncertainty and that is not in my estimation the basis on which the planning system is meant to operate on, so that people can invest with confidence.
[Eric Barnett:] Mr?
[P Sedgewick:] Yes thanks, Stephen,. Brief comment. It seems to me from what Mr in particular said, that the bottom as it were has dropped out of the market to this extent that it seems that the policy that he's advocating, is not thirty one thousand any more, but thirty one thousand plus any amount of windfalls and recycling. And a somewhat open ended number. But I would caution you lest you be tempted to take that up, against putting forward any number whatever it be, and saying that er windfalls and recycling shouldn't count against that number but should be regarded as a a bonus. I and I daresay others round this table, have experience of other counties who've adopted that approach, or other panels who've adopted that approach and it creates endless problems and endless appeals debating what is a windfall and what should be in the plan and what should be not. But if Mr 's argument is that windfalls and recycled land are as it were free of any environmental penalties and can be added to his thirty one thousand, then I think that er the way to treat that is to come to a higher number which takes them properly into account.
[Eric Barnett:] Mr?
[J Cunnane:] Erm to deal with Mr 's point about denying a problem of affordable housing, I think er he mustn't have heard what I said properly, because I've never sought to deny that there's a ho a problem of access to housing. There is a problem of access to affordable housing, all I'm saying is that you don't solve it by wholesale allocation of land. You don't solve one problem by creating another. The the as Mr er said, the way to solve the access to housing problem, is through the planning er through local plans and through affordable housing policies which are now enshrined in P P G three, and can deal with that problem quite satisfactorily. So I don't deny a an an access to housin or an affordable housing problem, quite the contrary, but I say it is a policy which is a it is a problem capable of solution by local plan policy, not by wholesale allocation of land as he advocates.
[Eric Barnett:] Miss?
[Margaret Rees:] If I could just make a point about affordable housing chairman, of course the department recognizes that there is a problem of affordable housing as evidenced by minister's statements but the view of my policy colleagues in headquarters is that this is most appropriately addresses in district wide plans and not necessarily at structure plan level.
[R Whittaker:] Sorry. Can I go back to what Miss has just said? Surely that's in terms of where and how it is provided. Whereas what we're talking about in the structure plan is how much housing in total, of which affordable housing will form a greater or lesser part.
[Margaret Rees:] That's right, but we would expect it to be subsumed in the numbers of overall requirements for housing.
[R Whittaker:] Yeah. Do you want to comment on what five thousand less than your figure would do for affordable housing?
[Margaret Rees:] I think as I said before, it would lessen the erm the measure of flexibility. Exactly which way it would affect it, whether it would be affordable housing or any other sort of housing is a matter for debate.
[Eric Barnett:] Mr, sorry I you may want to comment in fact about the relationship of these figures and the emerging policy in Cleveland.
[Margaret Rees:] Mr Chairman I feel a bit like an aircraft that's to come down to Leeds er er Bradford Airport rather than Teeside at the present moment. Er I think most of the problem is probably in the Leeds, Bradford er Harrogate area rather than our own area of Cleveland. Erm we have er approved regional planning guidance published September nineteen ninety three, which takes the allocations for Cleveland area through till two thousand and six at er fourteen thousand. We have er sufficient land available for development in Cleveland, er for eighteen thousand, two hundred and thirteen dwellings. Er we have er inherited a problem of over-forecasting perhaps in the seventies, with our first structure plans in the sense that the er employment was forecast to be much higher at that time. We have experienced quite considerable out migration er in the period since, and we do build in perhaps slightly optimistic erm migration net migration figures compared to the er O P C S er and and D O E figures but they are nevertheless accepted as part of this forecast the regional guidance, on the basis that we have a major regeneration problem in the area, to reiterate what I said this morning. Erm we are in the current process of reviewing our own or altering our own structure plan, the first alter alteration is going through consultation at the present moment and we're estimating a need within that period of of actually fifteen thousand which is marginally above the regional planning guidance. Erm looking at the figures of migration between Cleveland and North Yorkshire, I received yesterday some figures which which are quite interesting in this respect. Erm perhaps if you've got a pencil handy here. Erm the n the net movements between Cleveland and North Yorkshire as a whole have been respectively for nineteen eighty eight, four hundred and fifty five persons, for nineteen eighty nine, two hundred and twenty nine persons, er for nineteen ninety, two hundred and forty persons, nineteen ninety one, three hundred and thirty seven persons, and for nineteen ninety three, because I missed the figures for ninety two for some reason, they're not there, er five hundred and ninety nine. Erm this gives an average over say a five year period of about a hundred and forty nine dwellings per annum, if you if you divide that by the household er estimate of something like two point five household size, which is the current sort of level in Cleveland. Erm looking interestingly enough, at the Hambleton figures of I understand these are new purchases, which is a bit surprising perhaps, but over a two year period there erm this is table three in Hambleton's submission, there's a reference to the number of erm the origin of house purchases from Cleveland in Hambleton, and it would be seen from there that Cleveland erm produced a hundred and fourteen dwellings, that's purchases of Cleveland residents in the Hambleton area erm in nineteen ninety one to ninety three. That's over a two year period. And er a hundred and seventy one overall in Hambleton. Er sorry a hundred and fourteen in Stoakesly, a hundred and seventy one overall in Hambleton. Which is quite an interesting comparison to make with our own out migration figures. Erm we have er land in the sort of places which compete with Stoakesly although we don't have quite the rural environment, except as was mentioned, at Guisborough. Erm we we aim to get as much development in our area as possible and coming back to your first question this afternoon, I I don't really se any problem with the North Yorkshire proposals, that's the middle range. Erm I do see there would be problems if there's a lot of land released in the Northern part of North Yorkshire and Hambleton, in terms of our meeting our own objectives. Much of the growth that you see reflected in these figures is probably old commitments. And Hambleton are are being more restrained as I said earlier, is appropriate to our own policy. Er our only problem is that some of our housing is concentrated in rather large blocks, and that does put pressure looking for v var variety of sites in the county and we are erm getting a lot of objection for some potential development sites in our area at the present moment. But I don't see any problem, from the figures I've given you, in handling any of those forecasts really when you're talking about a very small proportion in our part of the world compared to the probably the figures that you're talking about around er Leeds, Bradford, Harrogate. I think I'll leave it at that for the moment.
[Eric Barnett:] Yeah. Er I I know you're submission was was was very clear in in in the sense that you said that you said that the figure proposed by North Yorkshire was would create no problems.
[Margaret Rees:] Yes.
[Eric Barnett:] Mr Just a very brief comment, perhaps summing up the and commenting on the various contributions that we've heard so far. Erm I won't really comment on in any detail on on the forty one thousand figure because it's ours and I think we put sufficient justification in for it. Other than to say I've already mentioned er in respect of Mr 's point about his view that no new sites would come forward at forty one thousand, well quite clearly a substantial number of new sites in the residue will come forward, these will be new sites. A more general point on the forty one thousand, again from Mr and Mr, is one I will describe as the er the doomsday scenario which is usually trotted out at er er at debates such as this, erm the effects on affordable housing er and low cost housing. We heard it in nineteen eighty and we heard it again in nineteen eighty seven in pursuance of the House Builders Federation's er views. it wasn't accepted then er and we hope er that it won't be accepted now because the County Council thinks that with the level of provision for migration development, er there is sufficient flexibility within its policy. Commenting on the thirty one thousand, er Mr 's erm er scenario, that the County Council would clearly think this to be erm unreasonable, it would clearly have regional implications er as I said earlier er in my opening remarks er the County Council would accept that it wouldn't be meeting its regional commitments, erm er it would be difficult in practice bearing in mind the level erm of commitment we've got and there may well be local problems in in local housing markets with the level of er of growth er at that level. As far as the H B F's scenario's concerned, this would probably lead to an increase in the building rates above the approved plan of around about fifteen percent. Erm I think that that in the same way as if we went down too low, could be considered to be er a change of strategy and I think what we're about is to try and reflect the currently er approved structure plan strategy. Erm I think there would be environmental problems, I think there would be major problems of sustainability because quite clearly, er scale migration into North Yorkshire would be accompanied in significant past by back out er of North Yorkshire, particularly to Cleveland er and to to West Yorkshire. Mobility in North Yorkshire is increasing dramatically, has increased dramatically over the last ten years and I think there are sustainability arguments against a level erm of provision at fifty er around that level. Erm and a I think quite clearly there would be a conflict with what appears to be currently extent government policy to regenerate er the metropolitan areas of Cleveland erm and West Yorkshire. We think the forty one thousand dwellings give sufficient flexibility erm i it will ensure a substantial continuing house-building sector in North Yorkshire and I think it marries environmental requirements with er the with our wider responsibilities. Thank you very much. Mr
[R Whittaker:] Yeah my point is a brief one and i it's coming back to the the question of commitments that was discussed discussed earlier. Er and er the point point was r raised in relation to erm the thirty one thousand figure, that w er you're virtually at that erm commitment level already. That that seems to me to be slightly back to front as as a justification for increasing the figures. Erm in that er surely the the response to that should be well one should m more adequately er control phasing. Erm and and a point was raised in our our evidence given the existing overshoot of structure plan figures, erm the the the county county wide the figures have overshot the agreed structure plan figures, that should focus attention surely on on the need to to more closely control the release of the committed land erm er that is currently without planning permission, through the development control process. I think w w what I'd urge the panel to to consider is is perhaps looking at it from that perspective, to encourage the County Council to review the phasing provision of policy H one erm in terms of er how the the committed land is going to be released for development....
[Eric Barnett:] Mr
[R Whittaker:] Sorry.
[Eric Barnett:] Sorry pick it up.
[R Whittaker:] Can I ask Mr,... to clarify points that you're making is you would like H one to be phased? The there is in in policy H one as proposed at the moment, a the last sentence refers to the issue of phasing. Erm but the the point I'm making is that existing figures erm for the existing sorry the figures for the existing structure plan indicate that there's been an overshoot on agreed figures. And and that to me is indicative albeit er in a small way of a failure to adequately phase the release of land albeit that the figures I accept are are relatively small. Erm logic suggests surely that that erm one should concentrate on the adequacy of the phasing er the existing phasing mechanism, and the words within policy H one and the guidance that the county is giving to the to the district authorities, in how they should phase the release of the committed land. Erm and and I think that is I think you'll agree that's looking at the problem from s from from the other side. Er and not saying that, Well because erm twenty nine thousand er dwellings are already committed, we've therefore got to we've therefore got to provide more, because that will be eaten up fairly quickly. Er that to me suggests that one should focus attention on on the phasing mechanisms for the release of that land. I understand that's the point you're making. What I'm not clear about is whether you are suggesting that the panel, make some strong comments in their report to the County Council on the need for appropriate phasing, or whether the panel should recommend that policy H one be divided into phasing periods. Erm I think I think what I'm suggesting is that the that the the panel should should er advise the County Council as to how they should address the phasing issue. Whether that is done erm well I I I I I don't have an immediate solution as to what what the way in which you may wish to advise the the County Council on how to do that. What I'm suggesting is is that that is perhaps something that the panel should dwell on in their deliberations and their advice to to the county. So I think it it is an issue that perhaps hasn't been addressed in our discussions erm hitherto and and and seems to me from from past evidence to sugg to be an issue that does need to be to be looked at. I see my question's provoked Miss to pick up her name.
[speaker002:] [LAUGHTER]
[R Whittaker:] not to wave it about. Erm can I ask Miss, your view on phasing the structure plan?
[Margaret Rees:] As I'm sure you probably know better than me Miss, the department blows hot and cold on phasing. Phasing is currently an in word. Again my my personal view is that I think phasing has got a lot a lot going for it but I do not know how you could phase current commitments, because after all those those are on the table now.
[R Whittaker:] The wind is warm this week.
[Margaret Rees:] [LAUGHTER]
[Eric Barnett:] Mr
[Roy Donson:] Thank you. Roy, House Builders Federation. Erm a few comments I'd like to start with with Cleveland and the erm the idea that there's there's there's there's no problem whatsoever in accommodating erm the overspill if I can put it that way or the retention within Cleveland. As I understand it the Cleveland structure plan proposes the same number of dwellings for erm its next period which happens to be fourteen years, as it did for the last fourteen of the of the previous structure plan, fifteen thousand seven hundred. But it's interesting that the distribution of those dwellings is very different. And on the new proposal, the distribution favours Hartlepool as opposed to Stockton-on-Tees. And erm I would suggest that additional favouring of Hartlepool will do nothing whatsoever for the relationship with with North Yorkshire. And in fact Hartlepool is much more related to to Durham than it is to er North Yorkshire. Erm Mr mentioned the issue of building rates and that the proposal by the H B F would be in excess of the building rates. Well yes, of course it would, I submit to you that building rates are in that context are are an irrelevance because erm all that building rates tell you is what's been built in the past. They don't tell you anything about what's needed in the future. I'll come back to the issue of sustainability I think under one B when we get to individual districts, but it does seem to me it's rather overstated. And then Mr then erm dismissed my concerns for affordable supply in that it had all been said before. I wasn't aware that in nineteen eighty and nineteen eighty seven, the government had the same policies it does now. And one of the features of the current policy is that affordable supply is partly a matter to be negotiated and it's very important that it's negotiated out of the general er supply made by private sector builders. The point that I've been making with the various percentages is that those negotiations will become unrealistic if on average, you're talking about forty some percent of sites having to go for affordable housing on a negotiated basis. It simply would not happen. And there will be a shortfall of that amount. Obviously some supply would would occur because housing associations will build wholly on some sites. But as a general rule there w because it has to be negotiated, it would not be er supplied. And erm so I don't think the issues of affordable supply are quite the same as they have been in the past and I think it's a very relevant consideration for this particular structure plan....
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you Mr. And Mr has been waiting patiently. something you want to go back on?
[Dave Girt:] Yes chair. Dave, Leeds City. Er I wanted to come back on the question of regeneration and the opportunities in Leeds. A number of speakers have suggested that er there are vast areas of brown field sites in Leeds just waiting to have houses plonked on them. Which would relieve the need to use er so called green field sites in North Yorkshire. That's not the case. We've exhaustively surveyed Leeds time and again to find these erm so called brown field sites which our own residents suggest are there. And there just there are just not enough in suitable locations for housing, to meet the needs of Leeds. That's why we ourselves have had to take our own greenbelt land.
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you. Mr are you going to say much the same?
[W Caulfield (bill):] just to erm reiterate the comments for Bradford To point out that er in the deposit U D P, we've been only able to allocate er approximately ten percent of our new allocations in the existing urban area. Thank you.
[Eric Barnett:] Mr, do you want to tell us about the delights of Hartlepool
[Stephen Grigson:] No I I just want to refute the the point that was made there chairman, because er it isn't er it isn't accurate. Er out of the eighteen thousand two hundred and thirteen dwellings, three hundred and er three thousand one hundred and sixty nine are in Langbar adjoining Cle er North Yorkshire, three thousand two hundred and thirty three dwellings are in Middlesbrough adjoining North Yorkshire, and seven thousand eight hundred and thirty four dwellings are in Stockton, of which four thousand three hundred are at Ingleby which d, directly also adjoins the North Yorkshire boundary, so I I think that I must make that quite clear that the majority of these dwellings provided for in the Cleveland structure plan are erm comparable in terms of er the that area. The only difference is that I suppose er at we have er which is development in North Stockton, we have er erm permission for four hundred erm executive dwellings which is the sort of er market which you could have been looking for at in the past. And we are making provision for executive housing in our area as well as erm er outside the area. In a sense.
[Eric Barnett:] So effectively what you're saying is a sizable proportion of your... proposals are South of the Tees.
[Stephen Grigson:] That's correct.
[Eric Barnett:] Right. And talking of tea
[speaker002:] [LAUGHTER]
[Eric Barnett:] Can we resume at three thirty please. [tape change] sentence please.... Now unless anybody's got a burning desire to pursue the question which I posed at two o'clock, and from my point of view I think we tested it to destruction. Er I'd like to go for some little light relief at this time of the day, and look at sources of supply. Now I I think I would like to ask the county to come in and deal with this question of how much of their forty one thousand two hundred is new build and how much is gonna be taken up or provided by the conversion. Mr?
[Margaret Rees:] Malcolm, County Council. I think I'd refer to our paper N Y four, in particular the paragraphs, thirty five to and including thirty seven. Which does indicate that something of the order of twenty five and a half thousand dwellings already committed through completions, outstanding planning permissions and local plan alteration in adopted local plans.
[Eric Barnett:] Right.
[Margaret Rees:] And that in addition some three and a half thousand dwellings are contained in draft local plans which have yet to be tested through the the local plan process. Of the remainder which is what Simon er twelve thousand dwellings, the County Council has made no specific on what proportion will be provided through conversions or through windfall sites or small sites. And in the County Council's view this is a matter to be resolved by the district councils in their own plans. The County Council does not have sufficient detailed information on the situation at the local level to be able to comment specifically on individual districts. On the the situation erm in relation to these factors.
[R Whittaker:] Can I pursue that Mr please? And... you referred to two sorts of allocations, one, those in adopted local plans and the figure was if you could remind me please.
[Margaret Rees:] Fifteen hundred dwellings.
[R Whittaker:] The time scale of those local plans is what please?
[Margaret Rees:] To ninety six.
[R Whittaker:] None of them go beyond nineteen ninety six?
[Margaret Rees:] No because the structure plan itself as approved only goes to nineteen ninety six.
[R Whittaker:] And the time scale of the three point five K?
[Margaret Rees:] Mostly again to ninety six, although erm some do go beyond.
[R Whittaker:] So that in total you're saying twenty nine thousand dwellings, one way or another are committed before nineteen ninety six.
[Margaret Rees:] Well, in so far as they have planning permission or allocated local plans. Exactly what extent they could be taken up in the period to ninety six, is not necessarily erm clear because we we don't know exactly when those are going to be taken up.
[R Whittaker:] That is true, but if somebody applied for planning permission tomorrow or a or a renewal of planning permission, it would be difficult if not impossible to refuse permission for those to be committed.
[Margaret Rees:] absolutely but that isn't quite the same as actually having been taken up and developed up to ninety six. And in fact the evidence suggests I that in the three years remaining till ninety six, it is most unlikely that those twenty five thousand dwellings will be developed, given the alteration at the present time.
[R Whittaker:] Indeed. Thank you....
[Eric Barnett:] Well as I as I read it the Co you haven't made any allowance for conversions, you've made an assumption that part of the housing figure will be met by conversions.
[Margaret Rees:] That is correct sir.
[Eric Barnett:] But you don't wish to put a figure on it.
[Margaret Rees:] No because I think that is a matter for the local planning authorities in their their local district wide local plans to look at the the way in which they wish to meet the particular totals for their individual districts. They will have a better understanding within their district of the the supply of site property that can be is available for conversion. And local factors which may affect future conversion rates. We do have information on the extent to which net conversions have been provided over the past well during the eighty one ninety
[Eric Barnett:] Yes I mean I acknowledge that that is rightly a matter for investigation establishment through the local plan system. But nevertheless, how far can you go along towards giving certainty to for example the building industry on the amount of new housing which would come from green field sites for Sorry from the non- conversion element.
[Margaret Rees:] Well I think the the overall housing figures which were contained in the approved structure plan, made up of a range of sites and allocations. They're made up of small sites, they're made up of windfall sites. The approved structure plan doesn't provide any indication of the way in which that can be broken down. Erm by including conversions this time round I don't see there's any particular difference, we are giving the district a global figure for their districts, which they will then need to look at in the light of local circumstances. I don't see any necessarily any difference by including conversions this time round.
[R Whittaker:] If we look at the summary table P S O two,... and sticking column two, gives us annual average building rates for nineteen eighty one, ninety three. Our interpretations of that figure excludes any dwellings provided by conversions. But you said, a moment ago that you had some evidence on this. Do you have any idea what the average annual rate is for this?
[Margaret Rees:] Of conversions?
[R Whittaker:] Yeah.
[Margaret Rees:] Well it is included in in my form. It's part of the appendices. Erm... appendix
[R Whittaker:] What does it come out at please?
[Margaret Rees:] Appendix five, the average is three hundred dwellings a year or thereabouts.
[Eric Barnett:] And is that three hundred included within that figure of two thousand eight hundred and eighty two?
[Margaret Rees:] Erm
[Eric Barnett:] Those are those are new build dwellings?
[Margaret Rees:] Right I'll have to check back against all the figures, if you can just give me a moment.... I'll just have to check back I've seen the table in this particular format.
[R Whittaker:] It is your figure.
[Margaret Rees:] Is it? Yes.
[R Whittaker:] The two eight eight two yes.
[Margaret Rees:] Where is the figure taken from?
[R Whittaker:] Er the most column G N Y four, appendix three, column average building rates....
[speaker002:] It excludes conversions.
[Margaret Rees:] Yes that excludes conversions.
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you.
[R Whittaker:] So that the annual average rate of provision of dwellings in North Yorkshire is something like three thousand one hundred and eighty two dwellings.
[Margaret Rees:] Including conversions.
[R Whittaker:] Including conversions. Thank you....
[Eric Barnett:] And you wouldn't wish to hazard a guess at all on on the likely contributions co conversions between now and the year two thousand and six. This is something just to absolutely specific about it, which will actually arise out of the work done by the district councils in their local plans. And come up
[Margaret Rees:] Yes.
[Eric Barnett:] Coming up with their best estimate.
[Margaret Rees:] Yes I think they have the the best information to be able to make that decision at a local level.
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you.... Mr?
[Dave Girt:] Sir, a small point in the same vein Stephen,. I have taken understanding how if the County Council don't have any view on the level of conversions in the future and as I think Mr said also this will extend to small sites and green field developments, how they assess the environmental impact of their figure or indeed anybody's figure, because clearly the environmental impact of conversions is very different from the environmental impact of either recycled urban land or green field development. And if in the County Council's view, they're all equally interchangeable and the anybody, then I fail to see how they can have come to a a view that the maximum acceptable environmental figure is their forty one thousand.
[Margaret Rees:] Quite Malcolm, County Council. Quite clearly, while I'm not prepared to put a a figure on the contribution that conversions are going to make to the period to two thousand and six, I'll be most surprised if it was a long way different from what has been taking place in the past. We're not talking of a conversion of ten to fifteen thousand dwellings with erm new building being reduced considerably, we are talking something in the order of magnitude of what has been happening in the past. To what extent that will be modified by by the changes in local circumstances, I cannot say.
[Eric Barnett:] If if we pursued there erm tell me whether I get my arithmetic wrong, er we assume at most three hundred a year from conversions. it's unlikely to be more than that. You don't know. But but let's for the sake
[Margaret Rees:] It it might It might be more
[Eric Barnett:] let's for the sake of the discussion assume it's about three hundred a year, then you're looking at another three thousand nine hundred during the remainder of the plan period.
[Margaret Rees:] For the remainder of the plan period.
[Eric Barnett:] Or three thousand six hundred.
[Margaret Rees:] That's right.
[Eric Barnett:] Which on the basis of commitment, twenty nine thousand, leaves an outstanding figure of just over twelve thousand.
[Margaret Rees:] No because the figure I quoted did include outstanding planning permissions for conversions.
[Eric Barnett:] So how many how many how many conversions are there within that?
[Margaret Rees:] If you just give me er a moment to check my.... About two thousand nine hundred dwellings.
[Eric Barnett:] Two thousand nine hundred.
[Margaret Rees:] Yeah.
[Eric Barnett:] So alright, for the sake of again discussion, we'll say that probably about another thousand might come forward. Although it could be more.
[Margaret Rees:] Indeed yes, it could be less.
[Eric Barnett:] It could be more. Erm and if it is more, then the amount coming from new build,
[Margaret Rees:] Mm.
[Eric Barnett:] is probably of the order of about ten thousand, eleven thousand at best.
[Margaret Rees:] Well of that order yes. In addition to the sites that are already allocated or committed.
[Eric Barnett:] Yes. Mr.
[speaker002:] Yes thank you. Just on the conversions point,th there will clearly be at the end of the plan period, an outstanding balance of conversion permissions erm which will not be built during the plan period, just as there are two thousand nine hundred er which come back from previous to the well not automatically previous to the plan period, but previous to the position we're in now. Erm I can't see sir, how the districts would be in a better position that the council and the County Council to decide what the conversion element would be. One doesn't allocate the conversions in local plans. The best thing one could do I think is to go back to past trends. And those past trends show about three hundred a year. And I would not suggest that total of three hundred times thirteen should be reduced by the amount of the existing commitment. as I've just said. Erm I think also sir, you if you compare the county's N Y four appendix six, if you'll just look at that.... With the county's N Y five appendix three,...
[Eric Barnett:] There isn't an N Y five.
[speaker002:] N Y five is the H two issue where they
[Eric Barnett:] H two right. I've got it now.
[speaker002:] Well it gives a schedule of housing conditions in Greater York erm and I've been comparing in in turn that schedule with the schedule produced by the City Council on a more updated basis. And that actually gives an assumption of net conversion gains in the Greater York area. So it seems to me the exercise not only must be done, for the purpose of calculating where we stand in supply terms, but actually has been done by the County Council in respect of Greater York. So I think the figures should be erm three hundred a year times thirteen. With no reductions.
[Eric Barnett:] Which is is again just assuming past trends will continue.
[speaker002:] I can see no better way which to make the make the assessment.
[Eric Barnett:] Until....
[Margaret Rees:] Malcolm, County Council. I'm not quite sure what it is Mr is asking. Is Mr asking for a specific figure for net conversions to be included in stage one. It does seem to me that's not entirely consistent to government guidance in P P G three which simply states that the structure plan would state whether or not conversions are included within the housing figures. It does not require that they specifically be separated out. And I'm not quite sure if that would necessarily assist the district councils in the preparation of their district plans.
[Eric Barnett:] But if if if if you are saying that calculation of housing provision includes conversions, I'm somewhat some guidance on how much provision will have to made from new built sites, and somebody's going to have to make an intelligent assumption about how much is coming forward from conversions.
[Margaret Rees:] Well certainly the starting point for that must be to look at what has been happening in the past as evidence. But on top of that one must then look into the future, the future supply of such properties, and the future o er of a whole range of issues which may occur locally and which can only really be decided by the district councils in their local plan work.
[Eric Barnett:] Yeah I I I mean I got the point, but er where does it take the building industry or the district. The districts obviously will do their assessments through the local plan.
[Margaret Rees:] Well absolutely I mean this is the way that things have always worked and the County Council makes a global assessment of requirements for a particular district and the district council then takes it forward with assumptions on small sites, windfall sites er and major allocations that they may be mad making. Er conversions are simply a different factor they will have to take into account. I don't see any difference in principle simply that this is an additional point they will have to take in account in their their local plan preparation.
[R Whittaker:] This may be also a question which you will say the districts are in a better position to answer and maybe they should be forewarned that if you say that, they will be asked that question.... Do you have a feel of how much of the total provision that you're proposing in the structure plan will be development on green field sites as opposed to development existing urban areas?
[Margaret Rees:] Er Malcolm, County Council. No I don't w we've never attempted to define development in those terms. Erm strictly in those terms by by district, mainly because much of the development across North Yorkshire is on very small sites er within urban areas, within villages, the extent to which you define them as green field or brown field sites becomes a very subjective one and I I think it's a very difficult line to draw. Erm and we we have never attempted to define it in quite those terms.
[R Whittaker:] Mm. But this if I may pick up on the point Mr made, how then do you assess the environmental impact of what you're proposing if you don't actually know where it's going to go?
[Margaret Rees:] But the environment The environment in North Yorkshire is not just confined to the green field sites, it is also confined to the the small villages, the market towns. And the character of those towns is also erm subject to pressure from development on what might be described as brown field sites and could adversely affect the character of those settlements themselves. Just as readily as by gr er green field sites.
[R Whittaker:] I'm still lost for what in effect is the answer to Mr 's question. How did the County Council assess the environmental impact of forty one point two K new dwellings.
[Margaret Rees:] The County Council took into account a wide range of considerations, in including the the information that came through from the local plan authorities, in the preparation of their local plans over the past ten years or more. On the problems and opportunities that they faced allocating land throughout the county. Erm the County Council is well aware of the problems they faced and the issues that have arisen out of those local plans and took those into account in the preparation of the structure plan alterations.
[R Whittaker:] But the essence of your answer to the questions that have been asked over the last twenty minutes or so, is we haven't done it that way.
[Margaret Rees:] Mm.
[R Whittaker:] With which I'm left with an impression that you don't actually know where the dwellings are going to go in general terms. How many are coming from conversions, how many are coming from green field as opposed to brown field sites. What basis what did you have therefore for your assessment that forty one thousand two hundred was okay?
[Margaret Rees:] Well I don't think you can expect the County Council and the structure plan authority to have an idea of where the allocations are going because that would be taking on the role of the local plan preparation authority. Er the County Council cannot look at an individual building and say, this is a particular piece of land which is going to be developed and this is going to have this particular impact on the environment. But
[R Whittaker:] No I didn't expect you that you would have the answer to those questions at the level of villages, however I think it might be reasonable to expect that in reaching your view, primarily on environmental grounds, which is the major flank of your argument for suppressing past migration trends. As part of that appraisal, you would have taken some view. The alternative is that and I'm being provocative quite deliberately, I am left with an impression that what the County Council have done is add together input from district councils to prepare its structure plan.
[Margaret Rees:] Well there's certainly been one element of the the input to the preparation of the structure plan, but there has also been some independent view on the the capacity and the the environmental problems that individual districts across North Yorkshire and West Yorkshire have in their ability to accommodate development, and on the pressure and the problems that those pressures of development will have on those individual districts, bearing in mind the environmental constraints identified both in National and in the Secretary of State's previous approval of the structure plan.
[R Whittaker:] What were those environmental parameters?
[Margaret Rees:] I think the County Council looked at government guidance in relation to the need to protect and safeguard National Parks, greenbelt, high quality agricultural land, to the need to protect the countryside for its own sake. Er there is a range of government advice on the sort of areas which need to be protected. Er it also takes into account the government's advice on the need to protect the environment and the....
[R Whittaker:] Did you make any quantified?
[Margaret Rees:] Not in the sense that the County Council went out and did a measured assessment which said, Right this particular district can accommodate X thousand dwellings in areas which aren't greenbelt or which are greenbelt or individual factors. It was based on their general experience and their general local knowledge of the problems and opportunities and constraints on particular areas.
[Eric Barnett:] Mr.
[W Caulfield (bill):] Yeah going to seek to fill in the spaces in your columns J and K since if you find that helpful. And to explain them. Er
[Eric Barnett:] Scarborough. Is that right?
[W Caulfield (bill):] Er dealing first of all with conversions, er J. We've got a figure there of six ninety and for the windfall sites, five seventy. If I can just erm refer to our previous experience of er conversions which I think is probably a little peculiar given the nature of a seaside resorts. Erm for instance in the period eighty nine to ninety two, we were running at an annual average of about a hundred and seventy four conversions a year. However the average, seventy seven to ninety two, er gives you a figure of eighty five. Now given the nature of the coastal economy and what has happened to us in the last ten years or so, we have calculated our conversions through to two thousand and six on a reducing level. On the basis that a lot of the big houses that were doing holiday accommodation and so on, er have have already been converted and this is our experience, so on that basis we have taken a reduced figure for conversions and that is basically the reasoning behind it. Now er thereafter you say well why six ninety and not seven ten. Er clearly the we have to you have to make a judgement on this. But that is the reasoning behind it. Similarly, er we have actually er taken something of the same attitudes towards windfall sites within the urban areas. Because a great many have developed in recent years. And taking up points about town cramming. So er I'm giving you that as an example, but I think that Scarborough will be atypical of the county as a whole because of the nature of the Victorian property and the holiday industry.
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you. Mr?
[R Whittaker:] Er could I just return to to the line of questioning very briefly that the Senior Inspector was was pursuing a moment ago with with the County Council, in terms of the assessment of the environmental impact that the forty one thousand figure. I mentioned in in my first contribution this morning a a concern about that those considerations that environmental considerations, even if they have been fully considered er are not there's not an explanation provided anywhere in in the structure plan supporting material as to how that's actually been achieved. However there there is there is I think some re there are relevant sections in in the county council document N Y eleven, which follows on which is the the county's as I understand it rebuttal to to the H B F's assumptions on erm the environmental constraints and how they should apply across the county. Erm the the impression I'm left with I must admit is that that that the cart has followed the horse if that's right in that erm the environmental justification for the figures has been retrospective. Erm I think, C P R E we feel we say this in our opening statement to our evidence that it should be the other way round. Er and in in indeed government guidance is is is states exactly that. I don't know if it's something through through the panel, it's the been put to the County Council as to whether I my interpretation of of the process is correct....
[Eric Barnett:] Well well perhaps Peter, North Yorkshire. Perhaps I could er develop erm erm the position a little bit further. Erm any suggestion that erm the figures that we're putting before this E I P have appeared out of the blue, er we would wish to er refute quite categorically. I you look at the County Council, the County Council is the National Park Authority. That covers about half of the erm of the county. Erm local plan progress is is well advanced erm er in the national parks and that has been the subject of continued discussion erm between the county and its national park committee, the county planning committee and its national park committee. There have been numerous meetings er between the district, the county and the national park committee on the problems of environmental capacity within those areas. The County Council also manages work on er A U M Bs the two main A U M Bs in the county. And the county's well versed in the problems within the A U M Bs. The County Council er together with its district council colleagues er has also spent five years looking at the problems in Greater York. There's another area, a substantial chunk of the county which has been explored ad nauseam in terms of er environment. When you then look at the bits that are left over, erm we've got Hambleton District Council which has er had the er er earliest I think local running down the centre of the county. There's been close liaison between er the county and Hambleton. We've an adopted local plan for that p part of Selby district outside the Greater York area, so already we've covered ad infinitum by by various assessments. Quite clearly the county's spent a lot of time assessing environmental capacity and environmental problems within North Yorkshire. And you can add to that the fact that a number of districts er have said that they've been consulted five times by the County Council er on various erm population projections. Quite clearly there's been full well perhaps too much too much discussion, consultation, assessment and implications right the way through the the preparation of this operation. The County Council is soundly based in pursuing a figure er of forty one thousand dwellings. Mr
[P Sedgewick:] , and partners. It seems to me there's there's a very circular argument that that's been applied to this question of environmental constraint. We we heard just now from the the County Council, that they have looked at Hambleton's district wide local plan, looked at the constraints in that back to Hambleton effectively as housing requirement. Rather than establishing at a strategic level housing requirements, so that local plans being formulated can weigh those housing requirements against environmental constraints. Because at the end of the day, it is essential that a balance is struck between meeting housing needs and conserving environment. That can be illustrated by a complete lack of information in front of us on the that that actually applies any consistency to er the the environmental discount applying in different parts of the county. I'm looking at the helpful assessment provided by Selby in A seven double O four. Their appendix three. And that sets out for each district in the County a few areas of different environmental constraints. National Parks,, greenbelt and so on. There is absolutely no correlation between those figures and the degree of constraint that has been applied on districts. For instance if you look at Selby, at forty two percent of its area constrained, and a high housing value requirement. If you with Hambleton, forty four percent, with a very constrained housing requirement, a seventy percent constraint. I think you may say they're they're different districts and and Selby is constraint is all greenbelt. You can compare Ryedale and Hambleton, which are not very different. Ryedale has more a higher proportion of National Park, A O M B, local landscape designation and greenbelt than Hambleton but is unconstrained. I just do not see that any logic can be applied in this process at all.
[Eric Barnett:] Yes Mr
[J Cunnane:] Yeah,, Samuel Smith's brewery, Tadcaster. Erm to echo the point that Mr has made, I also regard this erm the environmental assessment as unsatisfactory with its particular interest in Selby. And er I note that Selby has accepted or resolved to accept the increased allocation from ten thousand to eleven thousand five hundred, subject to the District Council satisfying itself that the level of growth envisaged can be achieved without compromising the established structure plan strategy or the environment of the district. And it seems to me as Mr said, it's putting the cart before the horse really. The it's no use accepting a level of housing and saying, We'll accept that subject it not damaging the environment. What should be done is the level of housing allocated to Selby should be assessed in terms of whether it can be satisfactorily accommodated, and if it can't then it shouldn't be allocated. If it can, it it should be allocated. But this the way it's it's er accepted here is completely unacceptable in my view....
[Eric Barnett:] Mr?
[Dave Girt:] Stephen from. Sir I very much share the best I think doubts that were evident in Miss 's questions about whether there is any real environmental assessment on which the county figure's based. Either a county or indeed at a rational comparative district level. I prior to this E I P read through N Y four, very closely, looking for this. And I counted the word environment and environmental, forty five times and not one scraptwo thousand and
[Eric Barnett:] Comment
[Roy Donson:] Perhaps Mr can confirm whether he was present when the county planning committee considered on I think three or four occasions, the er the various range of projections. Were you present Mr.
[Dave Girt:] My colleagues were present sir and have informed me that the comment that I made is actually accurate.
[Roy Donson:] I wouldn't accept that. There were a range of meetings, some private meetings with district councils when they've given the opportunity to discuss issues erm themselves, and quite clearly our members did in fact look at a whole range of projections before coming to a final view. Quite clearly it was a thorough examination and members had before them at both county and district level, the implications er of the various projections. And er they took the decision erm to erm pursue the policies er as as as set out in this E I P.
[Eric Barnett:] Mr do you want to throw some light on this?
[Stephen Grigson:] Yes er yes thanks chairman. Nice to get into that even if it is almost as er night watchman. Terry Selby District Council.
[Eric Barnett:] You can continue your innings tomorrow you know.
[Stephen Grigson:] Well I hope that won't be necessary. Erm reference has been made er a couple of times to the appendix which I attached to my submission, that's the map and the schedule of strategic constraints, I feel I ought not to let it pass without some comment. Er and basically that's I'm beginning to feel that I've thrown in a bit of a red herring here. Erm the only purpose of the information presented is to establish the differences in strategic terms between the the districts in in the county. I feel that is an appropriate er investigation which is being done by the county and and the district jointly. And I think it does demonstrate that in comparison with other parts of North Yorkshire, Selby is in fact much less constrained. Er and I really wouldn't like more to be read into it than than that. Er Mr also commented om the er consideration of the er emerging alteration and increase in Selby District's allocation from ten thousand to eleven and a half thousand dwellings erm and I would like to assure him now that we have completed out local plan studies, we are in the process of fine tuning them and and I'm quite confident that we will be able to accommodate the eleven and a half thousand dwellings.
[R Whittaker:] I wonder [clears throat] given Selby's recent experience with their local plan, whether they can enlighten us as to how they have reached a view that the structure plan provision in right in environmental terms for their district.
[Stephen Grigson:] Well g er going back to to my starting point that the relative environment of Selby the vis a vis the rest of North Yorkshire erm it's a point which I'm sure I'll repeat in in in the coming days and it's it's basically that Selby in comparison with other districts in North Yorkshire is significantly different. We don't have the the the same er national nationally [recording ends]