[Mr E Barnett:] Well are we ready to go? I feel a bit like Henry the fifth, once more into the breach. Er... resumed... on er we actually got to number eight this morning didn't we? Can I can I ask er contributions, short and sharp. Please so we can finish at a reasonable hour. Otherwise we shall be having conflicts with the amateur dramatics society. So we go into and I'm r reading the schedule as submitted by Mr, eight, little a, another fact is regional, sub- regional policies and if you will recall we Council's wording was, be consistent with regional and sub- regional policies. Now how many of the sectors as again as defined ones which we've agreed we will examine, er would fit or would be con would be consistent with regional, sub-regional policies or would possibly cause conflict with those if er they were the receiving the receiving area for a new settlement? Or do you take the assessment which Mr has done which er indicates that they are all of equal er merit or rank? Mr.
[Mr R Girt:] Dave, Leeds City Council. You've heard me often already chairman on this point. I don't think I need to repeat Leeds view about the implications for regeneration in inner Leeds and West Yorkshire.
[Mr E Barnett:] Er yes, but be precise about the sectors Mr. Which are the sectors where you feel, if you had a new settlement, er there would be potential er problems if that's the right word, for the implementation of your regeneration policies in Leeds.
[Mr R Girt:] Dave, Leeds City Council. The sectors of particular concern to Leeds are in particular, the A sixty four corridor, south west sector and depending on location, the A fifty nine corridor may have implications.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes. So that's Selby west and possibly Harrogate. Is that it?
[Mr R Girt:] That's correct chairman. That's correct chairman.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you. Any anyone else want to make a point on this? Good can we move on to the next one? Infrastructure. Do you want t well yes, County Council criteria... was to be acceptable in respect of the provisions of essential infrastructure, particularly surface water and foul drainage and water supply. But it was agreed was it not that er... there ought to be coupled with that, it seems appropriate when you're talking about water supplies. Er avoid the flood plain and be acceptable in the context of surface water drainage. In other words er would be would not cause problems or ra raise objection from the N R A because it would conflict with their responsibilities. Erm any of the sectors that have been identified... erm... give cause for concern on that score? No. Y you were first on the draw Mr.
[Mr Michael Courcier:] Michael. Sir it dealing with drainage matters, I think there's general agreement from Yorkshire Water that the preference is the new settlement should drain should should either g be within I think I I put it detailed figures in my in my statement. I think it's three miles from the er Naburn works or going to the east York main link sewer. That would mean you would be looking at something on the A sixty four north or happily for Mr, the A sixty four south or the A nineteen south. The A nineteen north, the A fifty nine and B one s three six three would be less favoured for those reasons. As brief as I can be sir.
[Mr E Barnett:] Very succinct. Mr.
[Mr Peter Davies:] Without commenting on the or any sector I think the conclusions on these three elements, that's surface water, foul drainage and er water supply, may be different in respect of each sector. It's not it's not as straightforward, the conclusions in respect of one may not necessarily apply in respect of the other.
[Mr E Barnett:] Well.
[Mr Peter Davies:] And I don't know the answer. I I suspect neither at the moment do the er do the National Rivers Authority or or or the water authority.
[Mr E Barnett:] I know there may be variation in degree as it were, according to which particular aspect of infrastructure you're looking at. But is there likely to be anything which would be absolutely overriding? Or which would lead on to conclude that one sector is preferable to another. What you're saying is there's a shortage of information.
[Mr Peter Davies:] At the moment I think there is yes. A definitive statement.
[Mr E Barnett:] What about the point which Mr raised, made?
[Mr Peter Davies:] Well I wouldn't want to comment on that because I don't have the information to er to to set against anything Mr. is to is to discuss the detail of the issues in respect of those three those three elements.
[Mr E Barnett:] Would you like to ex Sorry Mr, would you like to expand on that last point? I mean do you want to go through each one.
[Mr Peter Davies:] No! The County Council's position is it doesn't feel able at the moment to express a definitive view on these three elements in respect of er of either sector. Of any of the sectors that in er.
[Mr E Barnett:] You haven't done any of these exercises?
[Mr Peter Davies:] Not in detail no.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr, do you want to?
[Mr Michael Courcier:] Yes sir.
[Mr E Barnett:] Just
[Mr Michael Courcier:] Michael. Sir you'll have seen the County Planning Officer's own report on these matters and you'll have seen exactly the same comments which I've made contained in that report. The County have done initial work on this and come to exactly the same conclusions which we have....
[Mr E Barnett:] .... Agricultural land quality.... Any sector which is less favoured or more favoured as a result of a... shall I say a generalized overview on agricultural land quality?... Miss.
[Miss Fiona Firth:] Fiona,. Er the County Council's own document January ninety two actually sets out erm the various regions around the around the York area and the general g grades of agricultural quality. They've pointed out that the area to the south and the west is generally much higher agricultural land than elsewhere....
[Mr E Barnett:] Are you commending us to look at that then?
[Miss Fiona Firth:] Sorry am I?
[Mr E Barnett:] Are you commending us to look at that and inwardly
[Miss Fiona Firth:] Yes I am. Well it it won't have changed so
[Mr E Barnett:] inwardly digest.
[Miss Fiona Firth:] [LAUGHTER]
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr.
[Mr Paul Brighton:] Paul, Partnership. Er the only point I wish to make is that there is considerable variability we have found in the grading erm and the Ministry of Agriculture maps can not be relied upon for relatively small er or larger areas. And erm in that respect I believe er that this particular factor as all of the other factors under er item eight, er it requires really site specific investigation.
[Mr E Barnett:] Well we shall Than thank you Mr. We shall refresh our memories on the information already supplied to us. Mr.
[Mr Michael Courcier:] Michael. Sir, we are obviously dealing here with a new settlement of ve very extensive land take, I think that the there are certainly been quite a There's been a lot of detailed work done by the various erm protagonists around around the table today about agricultural land quality. I think it is fair to say that erm all the detailed surveys which have been taken have tended to support the findings from the one to fifty thousand map in so far that the various developments proposed to the west and to the south have include quite large elements of grade two land, whereas the se proposals to the north a tend to be grade three land. And again one would te under P P G seven, one would tend to those localities....
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr, did you want to come back on that one? Or was it Thank you.... Can we move on then?... Archaeology and nature conservation. Erm... County Council wording had, avoid areas of archaeological nature conservation importance. Erm I take it Mr that that is what your... item heading actually encompasses does it?
[Mr Paul Brighton:] It does sir yes.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes. Are there any sectors where... there are... for example triple S Is which are of er how shall I put it, strategic scale, that could influence er the location of a new settlement. I I I see from your nature conservation strategy document that you have got some sizable triple S Is er
[Mr Peter Davies:] I
[Mr E Barnett:] within within the area of search
[Mr Peter Davies:] Mhm.
[Mr E Barnett:] but for some reason some of them may well lie within the
[Mr Peter Davies:] Mm.
[Mr E Barnett:] in the flood plain for example.
[Mr Peter Davies:] Yes I think
[Mr E Barnett:] Do do any of those come into play?
[Mr Peter Davies:] Erm I would think, by and large in practical terms erm they do not, I'm immediately thinking of the erm er on the Derwent. Erm some of which would be in the area of search but I think practically, for obviously drainage reasons, they wouldn't be a constraining factor. The other one that immediately comes to mind is er is is Strensall common but that of course is within the greenbelt erm anyway.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes.
[Mr Peter Davies:] I wouldn't have thought er that that er on archaeology and nature conservation, which really is erm a matter of er detailed site consideration, that er it would be a fundamental matter in the er in the location of a new settlement. I don't know whether our colleagues would agree or not on that. So I wouldn't Yes I'd accept that probably er a tick in each probably would er would be a reasonable assumption.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes. It's far too localized and site specific to
[Mr Peter Davies:] It does tend to
[Mr E Barnett:] actually come into play at the strategic level.
[Mr Peter Davies:] Yes I think that's a reasonable er summary yeah.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yeah yeah yeah. Even in spite of the advice given in P P G three? Yeah. Er moving on Pardon? Moving on then to freestanding form which in the expanded form would be, be freestanding and avoid coalescence with existing settlements. Now then
[Mr Peter Davies:] chairman er Peter, North Yorkshire. I would have thought again that er that criteria could reasonably be e be expected to be accommodated with er within each of the sectors.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes I recall on Friday morning we had this discussion about the wording which you had in the er
[Mr Peter Davies:] Mm.
[Mr E Barnett:] in in in in H two, nine, be freestanding and well removed from. But I don't want to raise that one again.
[Mr Peter Davies:] No.
[Mr E Barnett:] Now then. Move on then to minerals considerations. Sorry sorry Mr, I moved too quickly for you.
[Mr George Whip:] Er, Flaxton.
[Mr E Barnett:] Are you going to produce your great white spots again as distinct from Mr
[Mr George Whip:] Erm
[Mr E Barnett:] 's black spots?
[Mr George Whip:] I'll I'll make brief reference to them. Erm the question of coalescence, freestanding form, is in my opinion of more importance in regard to some corridors th some sectors than others. I believe that in the evaluation of sectors that we're now engaged in, it is possible as a strategic exercise to exclude entirely number six, the A sixty four north eastern corridor, on coalescence questions. But I would first start with a slightly wider issue. Er namely the density of settlements. And I did a diagram which I think everybody has, showing broadly the the density as we have it. If one looks at that erm built area where we are now that looks perhaps like a heron on a perch, and looks immediately east of that, you have Strensall Common, most of which is a restricted area. And the outer boundary of the greenbelt proposed by the County Council, slightly closer in than the existing outer boundary at that point, is coterminous with the boundary of the grenade throwing range. Between it and the boundary of the Howardian Hills area of outstanding natural beauty at Foston Bridge, the distance is only three and a half kilometres, just over two miles, there is therefore a narrow corridor not designated either as greenbelt or A O N B, which naturally er comes under rather heavier pressure perhaps than er areas round it might. Therefore, in looking at this diagram, one needs to realize that to the southwest er and just east of er Strensall erm the area is filled up by greenbelt. There are in fact very few areas straddling the A sixty four north east than one needs to look at. There is perhaps one northeast of Flaxton Village, another south of it and another southeast of the A sixty four. Taking the last first, there are three villages which are so close together that with any allowance for coalescence, even the one kilometre which I believe was taken in the original look at this problem by the County Council, there would be no possibility of fitting in a settlement er of the size proposed. And here I ought to perhaps make it clear that the circles I provided on the sheet which was distributed, allow for a density of twenty houses per hectare.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mhm.
[Mr George Whip:] If one goes to the slightly higher figure, which would be more appropriate for inner suburban development, then instead of my cut out for the Land Ranger map, for one and a half square kilometres, one hundred and fifty hectares, one can take the new ten penny piece. That w that is exactly at twenty five, and that is allowing a doubling of the housing area to allow for all the other features that come within the new settlement. The er commercial, employment land, shopping, erm community facilities, infrastructure etcetera. I don't think that that would be likely to be argued against. If one comes to the are northeast of Flaxton, I believe that for the avoidance of coalescence, one ought in the case of a village which has a rather wide boundary conservation area, for historical reasons basically, one ought to take the coalescence distance from the edge of that conservation boundary. And that is shown in the appendix to the position statement put in by Flaxton. If one allows even the minimum that was contemplated by North Yorkshire, one finds that there is no room left in the triangle surrounded by the railway, the A sixty four and the conservation area of Flaxton. It is impossible. I commend that exercise to you but won't go into more detail about it now. To the south or southwest of Flaxton, a fairly similar problem arises. If one took the distance as only one kilometre and we regard that as absolutely insufficient for a village of the character of Flaxton, we would prefer one and a half miles or two point four kilometres as the minimum. But if one takes only one kilometre, again there is insufficient room for a settlement which would not be close up against the greenbelt boundary proposed by the County Council, and close up against the A sixty four. It is just impossible to fit it in. I cannot see any other potential locations for a new settlement straddling the A A sixty four corridor, in addition to the three I have just mentioned and I believe that on that basis, it would be reasonable from the strategic point of view, to exclude sector six.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mhm.... You've just introduced a new method of measurement for all planners Mr. But yes thank you I I do take the point. In other words, on this particular aspect, approach with caution sector six. Yes?
[Mr George Whip:] Yes, I would go further than that but that is stating my view as at its minimum. Approach with caution, yes.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes. Yeah. Thank you. Miss.
[Miss Fiona Firth:] Fiona,. Sir, I'd like to bring your attention to erm a plan prepared by Partnership which is submitted as part of their evidence, which erm sets out for the south and southwest the er coalescence of existing settlements. First of all I'd like to point out that some of the existing settlements haven't actually been ringed, for example Acaster Selby. But it's obvious from a quick glance that that plan that in fact a number of those settlements are already coalescing in the form of a definition of a one kilometre cordon around the the village and there are actually very few areas outside of the greenbelt in that zone which could possibly accommodate a new settlement of the size we're contemplating, without causing coalescence.
[D Whittaker:] That reference was to which sectors?
[Miss Fiona Firth:] Well it's the south, southwest area. It it's actually probably south and south southwest.
[Mr E Barnett:] It's Selby East and Selby West isn't it?... If I as I recall
[Miss Fiona Firth:] Number two I think is the er
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes. Two primarily and possibly one as I as I as I remember
[Miss Fiona Firth:] Yes. That's right.
[Mr E Barnett:] the the plan which you produced Mr, it spans virtually the whole of the Selby District doesn't it?
[Mr Paul Brighton:] Yes sir it does.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you. Yes.... Er Mr first and then then Mr.
[Mr Christopher Timothy:] the revised criteria and and and as you've just read it out, I think for consistency with paragraph thirty three of P P G three, there needs to be the word unacceptable coalescence. And I think if you look at lessons such as the Cambridge situation, you can have distances of separation between a new village and surrounding settlements and it's as little as six hundred metres, depending on localized matters. And my view is that within the A sixty four corridor, north east, there is sufficient range of sites to be found that it should not be erm set to one side on this criterion.
[Mr E Barnett:] I I must confess Mr I had some difficulty with the wording of P P G there when it says, unacceptable coalescence, er and trying to balance that against the expressed aim that this should be freestanding. And if it's freestanding then you can't have coalescence, acceptable or otherwise surely, can you.
[Mr Christopher Timothy:] You might... There are certain new settlement proposals that have been put forward in other parts of the country which has been basically a bolt on to er an existing group of
[Mr E Barnett:] Yeah.
[D Whittaker:] Perhaps I could
[Mr Christopher Timothy:] Which might be acceptable.
[D Whittaker:] seek some clarification as to the way in which the County Council defines a settlement....
[Mr E Barnett:] When is a settlement not a settlement?
[speaker010:] [LAUGHTER]
[Mr E Barnett:] No no no no no no. Yes I sorry I mean there may be a cutoff point may there mayn't there. Mr.
[Mr Paul Brighton:] Thank you sir. Just on a point of er clarification, the villages or settlements I should say, that I've indicated on the er plan which is included within my statement, er is actually derived from the Selby rural areas local plan, which defines settlements and I believe the County Council have used a similar erm listing of erm settlements within that those two sectors for their own exercise when they looked at this particular subject er criteria.
[D Whittaker:] Thank you.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you.... Mr.
[Mr Michael Courcier:] Michael [clears throat] Michael, very briefly, we my my clients have two settlements new two ne new settlements proposed along the A sixty four corridor. Both have been designed to meet fully the requirements a set out by the County Council and we're quite happy, we can actually meet that requirement of being one kilometre from Flaxton, in fact we greatly exceed that distance, despite and that is a on the design of a larger new settlement than fourteen hundred dwellings. So as a matter of fact we can we can actually fulfil their requirement.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you. Are you to hazard a guess about when is a settlement not a settlement?
[Mr Peter Davies:] No I'm not at the moment. Erm [LAUGHTER] erm can I just say, just on the on the basis of Mr 's map erm I think that proves the point that er that I suggested at the outset of the discussion erm on this issue, that if you look at the distribution of settlements there outside the greenbelt, there's nothing there that suggests that any of the particular sectors ought to be discounted. Erm I think it's a reasonable starting point that there's a reasonably level playing field on the basis of er erm of of of that issue. And I wouldn't agree therefore with Mr or indeed with er Miss that er either sectors within that general framework erm should be discounted.
[Mr E Barnett:] On the same basis, there are some sectors er which have less settlements than indeed som if any than others.
[Mr Peter Davies:] Well I think that's perhaps a matter of slight degree it's again
[Mr E Barnett:] So the ques the question then is wheth whether you would accord anything anything erm any weighting to that.
[Mr Peter Davies:] Well no the issue is whether any sector is to be discounted because because of the distribution of settlements it would be on balance, difficult to find a location for a new settlement within that sector. I think that is the issue and on the basis of the distribution of settlements, er now there's nothing there to suggest to me that er there's anything other than the level playing field at the outset of perhaps of that exercise.
[Mr E Barnett:] Fine thank you. Anybody else want to make any comment on that? Can we move on to minerals considerations? Erm and we come back to the County's wording which is, avoid conflict between mineral and non-mineral development. Erm and I have to say that er I mean if if if for example this was to Well assuming we had H two policy then wouldn't you expect to make some cross-reference here to your ei policy M eight in your approved structure plan?
[Mr Peter Davies:] I think that erm yeah, as a matter of principle that wouldn't be erm untoward. You will notice in the structure plan as a whole there is very little cross-referencing between any of the policies in there.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes
[Mr Peter Davies:] Er I as I recollect it, that was largely the view the the Secretary of State took when he when he approved the plan and indeed there is a relationship between most of the policies. And you need to look at the policies as a whole rather than individually.
[Mr E Barnett:] That's right yes yeah. But people sometimes fall into the trap
[Mr Peter Davies:] Yeah.
[Mr E Barnett:] in looking at individual policies
[Mr Peter Davies:] Yes.
[Mr E Barnett:] or selecting those which
[Mr Peter Davies:] At the exclusion of others yes.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes. Yeah. Anybody want to make any comment on this? Mr?
[Mr Paul Brighton:] Thank you sir, Paul, Partnership. Mr submitted this morning a letter from British Coal, erm I just wanted to place on record the fact that erm this is no more than erm a reiteration of a a previous holding objection to my client's erm proposal for a new settlement within Selby District. I would like to say that there have been no negotiations with British Coal erm in relation to this objection as the application is currently in abeyance as it's obviously subject to a section fourteen direction, but I don't see anything in there erm which erm alters the the general conclusions er that I've put in my supplementary paper on this particular criterion.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr.
[Mr Michael Courcier:] Mic Michael. Sir er sir the I think I would not for a moment argue that minerals considerations can be ove overriding in this matter. Clearly they they they should not be. However they do go into the balance. It's quite clear from the British Coal letter that there is extreme concern about by the operator of the coalfield about the effect of any new settlement along either the A nineteen south or the A sixty four south corridor. And this is a matter which must be given some weight in decision when you combine it with the other factors also which we have gone through today....
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr
[Mr Paul Brighton:] If I can just make er Paul, Partnership. If I could just make one closing remark on this particular issue. The question of the Selby coalfield has not been seen as a constraint on other forms of development erm peripheral expansion, expansion of villages and so on within the coalfield area.
[Mr E Barnett:] Do you wish to make any comment on this this one point?
[Mr Peter Davies:] Not specifically other than obviously we don't know at the moment
[Mr E Barnett:] Yeah.
[Mr Peter Davies:] whether it is a real constraint in terms of erm of locating a er er a new settlement. I guess again that's something that needs to be looked at in the context of the er of of British Coal's ongoing program of work in the Selby Area.
[Mr E Barnett:] Well we have come to the end of Mr 's list. The other one, vaguely at the back of my mind it was raised this morning cos I recall Mr made a comment on it, and that is erm looking at the growth implications beyond two thousand and six. Are there any sectors where that may be acceptable or unacceptable? Or is it something which just has to be considered as part of the planning process? When you're dealing with a specific proposal. Mr?
[Mr George Whip:] I would say that it's a general applicability and it er governs the erm size that one should have regard to potentially in looking at the matter from the local plan point of view. I would say that it's germane to this exercise again in so far as it might lead to the conclusion that a particular sector is impracticable....
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes that that i yes. Yeah yeah. That is assuming of course that you would then go b much beyond the f the fourteen hundred figure which has been identified.
[Mr George Whip:] Erm just as an example, in the cutouts distributed, the three square kilometres, the three hundred hectares, is erm er double of course the area that I took up to two thousand and six of one and a half.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes. Yeah.
[D Whittaker:] Can we take it Mr that you would therefore apply the same comments to sector six on this criterion, as you did to the freestanding criterion?
[Mr George Whip:] Indeed I would. I think that the inherent development pressures which would develop by two thousand and six in the case of a successful new settlement, would be such that there would be a severe risk of encroachment within that distance that one had, years earlier adopted as the necessary clearance between and existing settlement and the new settlement. One should therefore have regard to as far as possible, the eventual size.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes. Yeah. Thank you.... Has anyone else I think we've exhausted the criteria er appraisal as it were. What I'd ask for now er erm is a sort of general rounding up, summing up staring on my left hand side.... Miss is just saying to me that [clears throat] a quick review of her chart, er could indicate that we haven't got any clear er how shall I say, clear indication, using the same word twice, that would point us to one sector only.... In other words In other words
[D Whittaker:] If I may chairman. I only highlight that to encourage those who are going to be making er concluding commentaries to p sharpen up their summary. Please.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes.
[Mr Michael Courcier:] Michael. Sir,i having listened to the discussion nearly two two days, two and a half days, it seems to me that I come very firmly with the conclusion that the A f A fifty nine, the A nineteen north and B one three six corridors are simply not practical. Mainly on highway grounds. The A fifty nine has a number of constraints upon it, including best and most versatile agricultural land, its its difficulty of assimilating a new settlement, but as I say most importantly for highway reasons. The A nineteen north, very similar reasons, but we have the added reason that the local planning authority, Hambledon clearly will not accept such a new settlement. And very similar constraints on B one three six three corridor. That leaves you then with three corridors to to consider. The A nineteen south, the A sixty four south and the A sixty four north. Again, the A nineteen south has a major highway constraint upon it and it's very difficult to see how that could be overcome. And I in my opinion the A nineteen south in particular should be dismissed for highway reasons. It simply cannot accommodate the traffic flows which would be generated. Which leaves two corridors, which are the A sixty four south and the and the A sixty four north. The A sixty four south, again there are highway difficulties, you will see from the note which we put out, the extent of di of of over capacity on the A sixty four south. You have heard the the frequently repeated comments by by almost all of the participants of the difficulties this would cause to the regeneration of Leeds. It has the added difficulty of the minerals problems. It also has the added difficulty that it cannot be effectively served by rail. I think, for all those reasons, it is should not be preferred. The a in comparison, the A sixty four north has I think o scores better on almost all of the criteria. It won't it is accepted that the new settlement new settlement can be assimilated into the landscape. It is accepted that there isn't any significant minerals constraint and it's accepted that there isn't any high well there isn't the same quantity of best and most versatile agricultural land. Which brings me really to the factors which I give the most weight to. Most im Very importantly, it is the area where I think there's agreement almost around the table that it is it will be the area which will best meet the Greater York needs, rather than needs of Leeds or elsewhere in Greater York. That I think is a factor which you must give importance to given the views of the Secretary of State. It is also the area where you have the most, the best transport choice of the practical corridors. We know as a matter o that the roads wh when dualled the road when dualled, will have sufficient c capacity. We know that it already has a very good bus service. And but most importantly, it is there is also the potential for a rail link. I think that it best meets that very important criterion. And I I think that's all I need to say at this point.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you Mr. Mr, are you going to run some horses through this particular race?
[speaker010:] Erm Roy, House Builders' Federation. I said some days ago that I would have difficulty er assisting you in making the choice for for some obvious reasons. Erm I'm still obviously in that position, that that position hasn't changed. I think I would simply say that er if you feel you can make a choice, so be it, if you feel you can't make a choice I would implore you to take up some wording similar to the wording I've suggested, which seeks to commit the district authorities to a to a new settlement within within Greater York. Albeit there's no sector location. Because as I've said to you before, I think it's very important that a new settlement is provided somewhere within Greater York.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr
[Mr Paul Brighton:] Paul, Partnership. Sir, I think I have the advantage over most round the table, if not all that I have actually put in to you a paper which I think sets out very clearly the basis of my er choice of the A sixty four south erm sector and I won't reiterate those points. I would just like to make a couple of general points though regarding Selby District as a location. Erm first of all, I think alternative sites can be found within the district which meet the requirements of P P G three, erm set out in paragraph thirty three, and I think the other advantage which perhaps hasn't been touched on is that the new settlement in Selby District would balance the otherwise very heavy bias of recent and future programmed development which is er to the north east of York. particularly within Ryedale district. And also I think you've heard that er Selby District Council er wish to u use the er York new settlement as a very positive part of their own strategy to accommodate development within er their own northern areas to relieve development pressures erm on their villages. The second point which I would make is that despite having had many months indeed years, to come to a view, erm it is only Selby District Council who have stepped forward and said, basically that they would be prepared to accommodate the new settlement. The other districts have had plenty of opportunity to say so but they have not and I believe that can be taken that they are not favourably disposed to a new settlement within their district, regardless of whether they're in favour of the principle of it. And I think it is important in the Greater York context that the York new settlement be located in a district which is enthusiastic about the concept of developing a new settlement, because to do otherwise I think will undermine the role er function of the new settlement. And that really leads me up er leads me to my final point which I think it is essential to plan for success with this new settlement. Erm I've indicated this morning that I think the employment component of the new settlement is an absolutely crucial part of the overall concept and unless you get a very good employment area, all the other objectives for the new settlement will not be achieved. And I think there is very clear evidence that a location along the A sixty four corridor to the south erm west or York is most likely in the Greater York context to produce a good employment area. Thank you.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you, Miss?
[Miss Fiona Firth:] Fiona,. I consider that the A sixty four south erm corridor should be eliminated from consideration for the following reasons. Erm a proposal of the new settlement in this corridor would be contrary to regional and sub-regional policy. Erm it would undermine West Yorkshire's policy of urban regeneration by creating a magnet which would erm lead to further migration into the York area, it would therefore not serve York well. Erm I consider also that erm a development in this area would intrude on the sensitive gap between the York and West Yorkshire greenbelts and would be likely to cause coalescence between the fairly densely located villages in this sector. We've heard from Michael about the access problems on this corridor, erm he's produced figures that show that this particular route is over design capacity. I'd also like to point out that erm due to the isolation of much of the area in the sector, erm n new access to a new settlement would be very intrusive on the landscape. The area is is erm in the main, flat farmland and it would be very difficult to erm landscape effectively any new settlement proposal or roads... serving it. Erm this sector of land also contains a high proportion of high grade agricultural land and should therefore be avoided. Erm i in addition British Goa Coal have plans to undermine much of this area up to and beyond two thousand and six. These plans would be prejudiced by a new settlement in this location. That's it.
[Mr E Barnett:] Is that it?
[Miss Fiona Firth:] Yes. [LAUGHTER]
[Mr E Barnett:] You're not proposing any other sector which might be a suitable home? No No.
[Miss Fiona Firth:] I'm not not. I'm not. [LAUGHTER]
[Mr E Barnett:] I I I mean I know the point which has been pursued by before. Mr, standing in for Mr. Yes I'm afraid I've come in as a a last minute substitute and I feel as if in the eighty ninth minute I've been given a penalty to take that could win the match or [LAUGHTER] missing it could mess us up so I I apologize. Erm I I've no wish to run through all the points er again that erm Mr and er Miss have have made in regard to the southwest sector. Erm I think that you know where we're coming from which I think the phrase you've used before. Erm we question the need completely for a new settlement and and we question that on the basis of population projection which we believe are reasonable. We're not seeking to impose artificial restraints of development, we don't think the demand for a settlement is there. Certainly not within the period of the current structure plan. We feel that the development that we admit is necessary, can comfortably be spread around the constituent authorities and we've heard nothing I I would submit that that that that that goes against that. You sir, I would contend have found at every turn uncertainty amongst the local authorities and a and a lack of unanimity amongst the Greater York authorities as to whether there should be a settlement and where where it should go. Which I which we would suggest is indicative of the fact that there is no overriding demand, which is what obviously for the purposes of P P G three, you are looking for. With particular regard to the interests of our client, other than taking an overview, we obviously have to look specifically at the southwest sector as a as a possible location. Erm... the principle aim of the new settlement would be to meet the needs of Greater York and one area that I'm afraid hasn't been considered yet, but which I think may well come out in connection with the employment policies in due course, is whether or not a new settlement in Selby would actually conflict with the underlying policies of Selby for development. It would actually be competing for development that Selby wants for its own population. Erm once the development er that would have been g going into Selby actually goes into the new settlement then it's me it's either meeting the new settlement's er sorry the the it's either meeting the goals of Greater York, in which case that's been taken away from Selby, or it's substituting for Selby. Erm a new factory going into the area for example will have a choice between one of Selby's erm can't think of a suitable adjective, large requirement for industrial land, or it will go into the new settlement. In our view the the simple fact that Selby are prepared to take it, erm shouldn't carry that much weight. I mean we have to make a sensible planning decision on where it should go and the fact that one authority is prepared to put its hand up when the others clearly aren't, should not be the main determining factor.... That's all I have thank you. Thank you. A volunteer is better than a pressed man. Mr.
[Mr R Girt:] The C P R E er remains opposed to to the basic principle of the new settlement on the grounds that have already been discussed, it's not needed, it's not sustainable and it's inconsistent with with current and emerging guidance. However erm if if you as a panel are one minded to to go for the new settlement option and two, er minded to make a ren recommendation about particular geographical locations or sectors, erm I for one would be very concerned that this would be done on the basis of of insufficient technical erm information. Erm you have in front of you er background material that's been submitted by way of statement and erm a half a day of discussion today plus plus this evening. I conclude from that that the technical information on on all the sectors is at best patchy, erm and where it's comprehensive it's come from people who are advocating a particular development proposal. And it's certainly not available in sufficient detail for for all of the sectors to make a fair comparison and I think Mr has made this point in in when you've questioned him a number of times today that the information is just not available or to hand to make to make that comparison. Erm I I look forward to hearing Mr 's views on on this particular matter given that he was the or or the department was was responsible for for in a sense prolonging the discussion to consider the breakdown of locations and as to whether he feels that there is sufficient technical information available on all of the sectors should a recommendation come forward for a particular sector from from the panel. If if you as a panel conclude that the information erm is inadequate, clearly er on that basis then then a suggestion would have to be made as to one how this matter can be progressed. And from C P R E's point of view we we would feel that the best way to do that is to is to reconvene if that's the right word, the forum of Greater York authorities to to look in more detail at at each of the sectors and under undertake the the technical comparison I think in a in in a fair and reasonable way which which I don't think we've really we've really achieved during erm three hours of discussion today. Thank you.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you Mr, Mr do you want to make a contribution on that?
[Mr R Girt:] Yes please chairman, erm as you've already heard, Leeds concerns are principally with the southwest corridor, the A sixty four corridor and to a lesser extent with the A fifty nine. Our concerns arise in relation to the new settlement of fourteen hundred households which we see as a quite different animal to the dispersed development proposed in Harrogate, Craven and so on. That concern is heightened if the settlement's intended to have growth potential beyond two thousand and six, and heightened still further if it's likely to be the focus of major employment development either in the short or longer term. The problems with these I think are principally of two kinds. Firstly effect on regeneration of the di diversionary investment which would be likely to arise, and that's as has been already mentioned, that's contrary to the Strategic Guidance for West Yorkshire. But also the increase in road commuting on routes into Leeds which are already severely affected and recognized as such by the Department of Transport and by the City Council. Leeds has received objections to its own U D P which proposed new settlements just beyond the ten miles on the A A sixty four corridor as well as elsewhere in East Leeds. If the panel were minded to recognize south west corridor as the location for a new settlement in North Yorkshire, then this is bound to influence the consideration which the City Council can give to those particular objections. Thank you.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you. Mr.
[Mr George Whip:] , Flaxton. Mr made reference to the development which has taken place round York in recent years. And to the fact that Ryedale has taken much greater share of that development than the other districts round York. In fact this procedure has one on over twenty years at least. But it's proposed to continue and if one looks at table N Y thirteen, tabled today, one sees that the residential land supply in and around Greater York up to two thousand and six, disregarding the new settlement, shows that out of a total of between eight thousand three hundred and eighty and eight thousand seven hundred and fifty dwellings, between three thousand eight hundred and ninety and four thousand one hundred and sixty, are destined for Ryedale. Indeed the settlement where we are at this moment, is to be expanded very considerably. This kind of thing has an important influence on the degree to which congestion can arise. And there is undoubtedly a high degree of movement from some of the new settlements here and in Haxby Wigginton into the City Centre, as compared with some other locations round. Congestion is er towards the northeast and the north. Day by day. I referred earlier to coalescence as being as an extremely important factor. I regard it as one of the two most important factors set out by D O E in paragraph thirty three. The other is of course the question of a need for positive environmental improvement if that can be gained. Through the reclamation of derelict land or the upgrading of areas of low landscape value. I will commend to the panel paragraph two point one point three of Ryedale District Council's position statement on policy H two with which we wholly agree. I hope that the panel will feel that it has had as a result of the position statements before it, and the discussions over the last few days, sufficient information to decide whether to exclude certain sectors. I certainly think that there has been enough information to do that and I would suggest that sectors four, five and six can readily be excluded. As between the other three, I have not expressed a particular preference, but because no developer has come forward in connection with sector three, there has perhaps been less detailed attention paid to that sector the A fifty nine, than to others. One should not overlook the desirability of having the railway line, which goes fairly directly to the station on a Regional Railways route and one should not overlook the importance of having a radial road which does not go through or otherwise influence villages between it and the centre of York. One should also I believe have regard for both the southwestern sector of York and this sector, the A fifty nine, the choices for traffic in coming to the city, on reaching the outer ring road, and the inner ring road. I believe that distribution possibilities are possibly better er for erm the south west and the north west er than or the erm er north east. I entirely agree with the comments which have been made by Mr with regard to congestion resulting from erm commuting from the northeast at the present day. That is all I would say in conclusion.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you very much. Erm go to Mr and then Mr. Come back to Mr towards the end.
[Mr Michael Courcier:] ,. In view of all the information and advice that has been given during the course of this planning discussion, I'm firmly of the opinion that sectors three, four and five do not fully comply with the requirement of P P G three. However in looking at sectors one, two and three, I think there are two important issues to consider, one is the ability of any one sector to maximize the use of public transport facilities and to encourage their improvement. I think all those three sectors have the ability to do that. The other consideration is clearly one of the threat of coalescence. Because this is indeed one of the important criteria set out in P P G three, that is the question to respect local preference as well as have the support of the local authority. It is for this reason therefore that I think that sector six is more likely to threaten coalescence with existing communities than sectors one or two. We have heard that Selby District has the capacity to absorb a new settlement, the will to absorb a new settlement and indeed, the need for a new settlement to. It is for this reason that I suggest therefore that the preferred areas of search should be confined to the corridors of Selby West or Selby East. Thank you.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you very much.
[D Whittaker:] Can I just clarify I'm sorry
[Mr E Barnett:] It's alright. It's alright, Mr.
[D Whittaker:] Mr, you ruled out initially sectors three, four... and five
[Mr E Barnett:] Three four and five.
[D Whittaker:] You r did I understand correctly that you ruled out sector six on grounds of coalescence?
[Mr Michael Courcier:] Sector six because there's more chance of the threat of coalescence within that sector.
[D Whittaker:] I'm grateful thank you.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr...
[Mr Christopher Timothy:] Chris, Wood Frampton. It is my view that when you look at all the locational criteria contained in policy H two and as we've discussed them, you'll reach the conclusion that there is one corridor that best meets those criterion, is the A sixty four northeast of York, sector six. I consider that this is this conclusion is reached having regard to the following seven points. Firstly, the A sixty four is to be dualled, in the national road programme. When it's dualled the road will have the spare capacity to accommodate a new settlement and we've heard that there is no Department of Transport objections to a new settlement along the A sixty four northeast of York. Secondly there are no mineral workings in the A sixty four northeast sector. Thirdly there is limited high quality agricultural land within that sector. Fourthly there is scope to assimilate a new settlement into the landscape without coalescence. There is extensive areas of woodland, many commercial plantations which can become the starting point for accommodating the new village. Fifthly, a location northeast of York for important reasons that have already been identified, will minimize the impact upon would minimize the impact of the new development upon the West Yorkshire conurbation and the objectives of urban regeneration that are taking place there. Sixthly, a new settlement to the northeast of York on the A sixty fi e A sixty four would be well located to existing employment, retail and leisure development that's taken place there. I draw your attention to the plan at appendix five of my statement. I mean you can see, it's self evident as you travel to Strensall that that development has been highly successful and s and the s the final seventh point is that the A sixty four north east corridor can be well served by the public transport to achieve the close relationship between the workplace and home, as national policy now seeks. And you can the new v village can bring forward with it a park and ride initiative that will complement other such initiatives taking place around York. Thank you.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you very much.... Do any of the districts want to be drawn on a choice or are you still maintaining the line which you have persisted in maintaining since we embarked on this discussion on Thursday, where we have two districts well sorry, Mr and Mr not agreeing in principle with the new settlement. Er do you want to pursue any point on that?... No? Mr and Mr?
[Mr Peter Davies:] Please.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr.
[Mr Peter Davies:] Lindsay er Harrogate Borough Council. I think er what this exercise today has shown us is that only about half the factors in H two er have a strategic dimension in so far as they would affect a choice between broad sectors around York. Er the other half of the factors really do depend on detailed site conditions, and cannot easily form part of a strategic assessment. I don't think we've heard enough here to make the choice, I think we need to look at both strategic and local factors in the co on a comprehensive and comparable basis. I think that really does lead us back to the starting point which is the County Council's view that er er that comprehensive study needs to be done as a matter of urgency and steps are being taken to get that work moving very soon now. And er I think all all the exercise today has underlined the the common sense of that approach. Thank you....
[Mr E Barnett:] add anything to that Mr? Or are you just going to concur with what he said?
[Miss Fiona Firth:] I'd agree with it fully.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you. Mr.
[speaker010:] [cough]
[Mr E Barnett:] Sorry sorry Mr.
[Mr Paul Brighton:] Yes er Michael, Hambledon District Council. I don't think I need to say anything further on the Council's erm position on the new settlement erm or reiterate Hambledon's earlier view that it's n its er view that the settlement is not needed and cannot be justified. In relation to erm Mr 's point, erm I would raise one particular point of concern and erm this is the possibility of delay in in identifying a district and an area if this step by step approach is adopted. Erm at Thursday's and Friday's session last week, we heard the possibility of a further erm E I P to consider the issue, erm introducing a possible delay of another eighteen er months er before more s specific strategic guidance would be available on this issue. Erm Hambledon believes erm not withstanding its overall objection, that such a delay is unacceptable. Particularly because of its im its implications on district wide local plan preparation. Erm it would be difficult for Greater York authorities erm other than York to progress their district wide local plans until the matter's been resolved. Erm and I'd remind the panel of the statements in P P G twelve erm paragraph three seven, that the government expects to see substantially complete coverage er for district wide local plans within five years. Now irrespective of what substantially complete coverage means or from one t when one takes the five year period, the message is clear, erm local authorities are expected to get on with their district wide local plans and I believe that this step by step approach on the new settlement is going to introduce delays into district wide local plan preparation.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you for that. Mr?
[Mr George Whip:] , D O E. Thank you sir.
[Mr E Barnett:] Sorry.
[Mr George Whip:] , D O E. Er I'm sure that members of the panel appreciate why I've remained silent during the discussion of item two D, but does anyone in the room who doesn't fully understand, it's simply that the Secretary of State of exercises role in relation to a new settlement. He may for instance need to intervene at the modification stage of the structure plan, or it could be that he will have to deal with appeals against non-determination of applications made by prospective developers. Or he could even be faced with the prospect of calling about individual applications or even heaven forbid, the structure plan itself. One point the department is very clear on, the section paragraph five thirteen of P P G twelve is as crystal clear as it could be, the structure plan should indicate the general location of individual developments likely to have a significant effect on the plan area. I find it difficult to imagine a form of development which would have a much more significant impact than that of a new settlement. We therefore feel it is absolutely vital that if there is to be a new settlement, it should come forward through the structure plan. The question posed in er item two D, should the policy include specific guidance on the location of the new settlement, we would hope that in the light of what you've heard, and in the light of the statement I've just read out, that you would have no difficulty coming to a conclusion on that question, just as it stands. I fear however in view of what we've heard from the two sides of the table, you will have rather more difficulty in coming even to a recommendation as to specific guidance on which sector of Greater York, this new settlement should be located if indeed you are minded to recommend in favour of one at all. We would have hoped that the county and district councils would have so organized their selection processes that they could have come to this examination in public fully prepared to argue the merits of geographical location. We have heard many times why that has not been possible and it's no good crying over spilt milk, as they say in these parts. It's a question of what happens from now on that's very important. I believe it's the intention of the authorities to try and do some very detailed work over the coming months, then armed with that detailed assessment and hopefully armed with your recommendations they may aim to be pr proceed to the modification step of the structure plan in a way that which will lead to a speedy conclusion. I find difficulty believing that they will be able to do that, simply because the detailed assessment that has been done to date, as we've heard so many times is is incomplete. But th the County Council may may yet surprise us on that score. All I would say is that, when the plan reaches modification stage, the Department will be looking at that the situation very closely indeed, and at that stage I would fully expect that even though I won't be here to to do it myself, as I shall have retired by that stage,
[speaker010:] [LAUGHTER]
[Mr George Whip:] I feel it is more than likely that the Department will be making a submission to ministers at that stage in the proceedings. Just how they react obviously will depend on the state of play which has been reached. All I would wish to say to you now sir is I hope you will feel able to make a recommendation on the direct question, should the policy include specific guidance. If you are, feel able to go one step further, and make specific guidance as to sectors in the way we've described, by reference to physical features, that would be fine. But I fear that you may not be able to do that. At the end of our statement sir we we did make reference to the er er removal possible removal of the article fourteen. And I noticed at one point in the discussion, this was queried by H B F. I think they feared that we wouldn't at that stage we'd be opening up free for all of the kind which we've obviously been seeking to avoid thus far. You'll notice though, in our statement it did say, on completion of the formal modification processes. And we of course in in our thesis, that would mean on completion of the selection process, if a new settlement is to be part of the plan. We wouldn't expect the County Council to to be proceeding to approval of the plan, but merely an approval in principle or an approval of the concept. We would expect them to be proceeding on the basis of a specific sector, a general location in sufficient detail to enable them to place a symbol on the key diagram in the approximate location where they think a new settlement should go. And it was on that basis that we made that statement there. That's that remains our intention, we wouldn't want this article fourteen direction to remain in force indefinitely, even though g the G D O said that we can do that. We wouldn't wish to do that, but nor would we want to open up a free for all. We would want this to be seen logically, through approval of the structure plan, to be taken up in r in the relevant local plan, and for that relevant local plan to then sort out competing claims from prospective developments, in mu in much the same sort of exercise as we've seen in the structure plan but obviously in a more detailed way. So we would hope that by releasing that article fourteen direction at that stage, all we would really be doing is making it possible for the l particular local plan to receive more specific impetus from real life applications within the general locations specified in the structure plan. Beyond that, clearly I can't go. If that stage has not been reached at the end of the formal application processes it it'not for me to judge now what the Department'll do. But that's what lay behind the statement there. And I think that's all I would wish to say sir unless you've any further questions.
[Mr E Barnett:] No that's fine Mr, thank you. There is Mr, the outstanding question about when is a settlement not a settlement, but before that, I I found this quick s this this this round the table summing up, very useful
[Mr Peter Davies:] Mm.
[Mr E Barnett:] if nothing for the fact that the message that is coming home loud and clear is this request for clarification, the advent of certainty, one way or another. Er and I again I have to say that we have not come to any conclusions about the new settlement, but certainly if there is to be a new settlement, then generally people would like more certainty. Erm we've heard about the measured approach, the step by step approach er and Mr, has said, please make your mind up one way or another so we can proceed with our local plan preparation. My question to Mr which he might like to comment on in his his summing up, is we've heard about the forthcoming meeting which you're going to arrange with the district council's, how soon would you be able to make progress? Would when would you be in a position to clarify, to your colleagues never mind anybody else, when would you be in a position to clarify which way forward? If we were minded to go down the new settlement line?
[Mr Peter Davies:] , North Yorkshire. Well can I say first of all that the meeting to which you refer will take place this coming Monday and I suspect that it will be the first of possibly two or three meetings which I suspect are going to follow rather quickly, one after the other. Er I suspect that through December and into early January, we would be moving towards agreement er hopefully agreement on the location for the new settlement. So that into the turn of the year, I can't be any more precise er than that, certainly we would hope to be seeing er the wood er from the trees. And quite clearly there is a lot of work that needs to be done because if we look back on the discussion this afternoon, er this morning er and this evening, quite clearly there are conflicting views and conflicting interpretations about various criteria, various elements of information that should er er should go into the mix. Erm as I digest Mr 's comments and the various implications erm of the things that he said, it's more and more confirming for me that perhaps we may well be right in the step by step measured approach because quite clearly erm I suspect that if we run at this stage a preferred location, erm I suspect that the the opposition to that and there would be opposition to it, may well have may well prejudice the principle er of the new settlement. The County Council's view has always been, before you face that hurdle, let's agree or get the principle accepted and then we move as quickly as we possible er as we possibly can towards a preferred erm location. That is our timescale, I know the County members and certainly the the three district council members are eager to have this matter resolved because, let's be perfectly fair, it's been hanging around now since nineteen eighty nine in a sense. But it's been hanging for the l particular local plan to receive more specific impetu done this exercise properly. They've done it step by step and they've done nothing er to my mind that would prejudice full public consultation and public confidence erm er in the process. As I look back on what happened this morning and this evening, er er nothing I've er suggests to me that any one sector should be discounted at present and I think er on the basis of what I've heard at the moment, erm all the sectors that er that we've discussed today, er are still in the frame. We said it would be difficult, erm and that discussion has proved how difficult it is to come to a firm conclusion. It may well be that weighting needs to be applied to er er the various criteria and I think that elected members are the appropriate starting point for er applying er er applying that weighting. Because it may well be again that more specific area of search will meet all twelve, on hundred percent erm of the criteria er that we er are putting forward. I did find the discussion interesting and illuminating, er it's gonna be a difficult task and I think that task for the County Council and certainly three of the district councils, starts on Monday afternoon.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you. Well on that note I propose to conclude
[Mr Peter Davies:] The the difficult question of what is a settlement is going to be answered by Mr.
[speaker010:] [LAUGHTER]
[Mr E Barnett:] Oh yeah, the settlement.
[D Whittaker:] Malcolm, County Council. I feel as though I've been asked to define, what is the length of a piece of string? I seem to recall I did once look in a dictionary to try and find out the definition of settlement, all it said was something like a place where people settle. It didn't seem to be getting me very far. It seems to me there are there are several elements to definition of settlement. First there's the idea it is a place where people live. Er it is not an industrial estate in the open countryside. I think the second element is that there must be some sense of a concentrational identity erm so that the the sporadic development that one does tend to see in the countryside, I don't believe constitutes a settlement. And the third element is a question of size. I don't believe that a a single farm with a collection of farm buildings around it constitutes a settlement in the way that is normally used in planning terms. Or that perhaps two or three dwellings together necessarily constitutes a settlement. But I think that is very much a question of personal perception. Trying to bring those those elements together into a single definition, I I had to use an established grouping of permanent habitation. And more than that I'm afraid I cannot tell people. There is no definition in the approved structure plan?
[Mr E Barnett:] No.
[D Whittaker:] There isn't Thank you.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you Mr. On that note I propose to close the discussion on H two, can I thank everybody for their participation, their contribution. We found it extremely helpful. Give us a headache of er where we take our thoughts from here. Can I say also a particular thank you to the unsung heroes sitting in the corner here. And without them we couldn't function properly. Anyway, thank you all very much, er some of you we will see again tomorrow, ten o'clock. [end of session]