[Mr E Barnett:] Part of the panel members is might be classed as partly walking wounded but... endeavour to carry on during the course of the day, you will find out who's the walking wounded. Erm before we embark on the continued discussion on H two er and we are prepared to look at erm the the which says should the party include specific plans on location of the new settlement. Erm there are a number of matters which need to be picked up by the county council as a result of requests which we made on Friday and also you will note that a number of additional papers have been laid on the table. Some of which are, well will need to be covered as we proceed er with the discussion on H two and I think in particular probably the additional paper produced by will need to be introduced... Mr.
[Mr Peter Davies:] North Yorkshire. First of all chairman we have put in this morning erm a paper on commitments which erm I think was asked for by the panel which is this document which should have been circulated er by now. Erm if anybody has any questions or queries on that er we'll be pleased to to deal with them. Erm the second er request was for to work in respect of the Greater York area, and unfortunately my unbounded optimism erm in respect of that has not borne fruition. Er as you will be aware chairman the nineteen ninety one census to work with data is not available, yet, from the census. But there is a body of information held by the county council erm on er journey to work movements in the Greater York area collected on erm on going basis largely by consultants, erm shared by the county council er and the City council. Unfortunately all the O N D information erm on that and that binds is post code er referenced erm and to extract the data erm in a meaningful sense for Greater York will require the reworking of all the basic data and that will take some time. So there, s a difficulty on that. But we have got a paper which we produced in nineteen eighty seven which was a review of the Greater York area using travel to work statistics from the albeit from the nineteen eighty one erm er census. And that worked did lead to an amendment of the then Greater York area to the area that is defined now. And that does include that paper does include er a schedule er of work trips into er York er for the various wards erm around York. And if that would be helpful er we can certainly give this to er erm panel secretary for circulation erm today. I apologize for the difficulties on getting er data out, more recent data largely due to the way the model is constructed at the moment....
[D Whittaker:] What I think we are looking for, in asking for during th was... a ratification of the definition of Greater York.... As I see it in with the board, Greater York,... now that the green belt is in a deposited local fund,... includes only two small areas beyond the green belt.
[speaker004:] [whispering] []
[D Whittaker:] To the north and north west of the city.... St structured numbered policy H one as it stands
[speaker004:] [whispering] []
[D Whittaker:] Provides for nine thousand seven hundred dwellings to be within the Greater York Area. And clearly from our debate the county council propose that that shall include a new settlement. It seems to me that the new settlement if... my analysis is correct can only be in one of those two areas, which doesn't seem to me to be a very sensible way of proceeding.
[Roy Donson:] Yes I think erm I think that's a fair point and this was touched on erm on erm Thursday or Friday, I can't remember which and er in respect to I think Mr raised the issue of the specific wording of the proposed policy H one. Er and I think we would all er acknowledge er the the precise difficulties of that wording and perhaps a, an amendment may need to be considered on the second line following the list of districts. Er which refers to provided in relation to the Greater York Area rather than in the Greater York Area. Something along those lines er maybe a more
[speaker004:] [cough]
[Roy Donson:] acceptable erm recognition of the reality of the the boundary of the green belt in the Greater York study area.... And the wording could be tightened up possibly on that basis chair er chairman.
[D Whittaker:] An alternative way of looking at it would perhaps be to say the Greater York Area is that area within ten miles of the city centre as is indicated by the third of the criteria set out in policy H two.
[Roy Donson:] Well I think there's a difficulty with that on, you then get into a difficulty on housing provision for Greater York districts. Erm to take the Greater York Area out to to to ten miles would not equate with the the calculations and the level of provision which erm have been worked out and which relate to the Greater York study area as defined erm in in in this document.
[Mr Peter Davies:] But p [microphone fault] up to ten miles, that takes you outside the limit and if if you have a new settlement for up to fourteen hundred clients, that patiently takes you outside the Greater York Area as defined by your study.
[Roy Donson:] Yes indeed it does erm
[Mr Peter Davies:] So it must fall within the remain you know eight districts figures. Outside the Greater York.
[Roy Donson:] Well on the way that we've instructed erm policy H one part of the provision for the Greater York districts is part of the nine thousand seven hundred. Now quite clearly the new settlement erm when it, if and when it goes ahead will be outside erm the area of the green belt and which by definition is by and large the area of the Greater York er er study area, and I think in response to er Mr 's point, we've accepted as a need for a er a minor amendment to the wording of policy H one to reflect that er that reality. And I would have thought it could be accommodated with something like in relation to the Greater York area.
[D Whittaker:] But you c... My impression is that you still finish up with a contradiction if you use terminology like in the Greater York area when there is and stick to the existing definition of that area. Is there a solution to this in the table which erm... has ruined Mr 's weekend perhaps? Oh he's still smiling, it obviously it hasn't ruined his weekend.... If, could... the problem be overcome by defining the Greater York area in the way I suggested? Within ten miles of the city centre and a and make a... compensating increase in the nine thousand seven hundred in line one of the third paragraph in policy H one. The table that's before us indicates that there are about sixteen hundred dwellings within the area... defined by ten miles [whispering] [].
[Roy Donson:] I think to do that erm [clears throat] to chairman, to to define the Greater York [clears throat] area then to ten miles that would of course require a consistent calculation of the housing need requirement both the local need element and the hundred percent migration element which arises within that ten mile er area, to be consistent with erm the rest of the policy, and of course that calculation erm that consistent calculation er has not been done for that area.
[D Whittaker:] I think Mr wants to help us out.
[Mr Malcolm Spittle:] Er well I'm not sure I want to I I I I want to help you out chairman.. I I i i in a way I want to back up the point Mr has just just made. The basis of of the housing calcul housing requirement calculation which has submitted both in my evidence and and the county's evidence. Was based on calculating housing needs within that Greater York study area, roughly speaking, six miles. Taking parish members etcetera. If we are now changing the area to ten miles then the the basis of the calculation needs to be made differently.
[speaker004:] Mm.
[Mr Malcolm Spittle:] It isn't the simple matter of adding on existing commitments to an existing calculated housing need.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yep.
[Mr Malcolm Spittle:] Er it would be a different commitment and would be a different basis. Er and and therefore er unless we are changing the basis of the calculation of the housing need thereby the basis of which we are thereby judging how we meet the requirement. Erm unle unless we're actually making that change as such, then the only way forward it seems to me i i is on the lines of which of which Mr has indicated which is that erm essentially the needs of Greater York are calculated on the current Greater York study area and the requirements are made on that basis and the supply is within that area, unless it can't be made in that area in that case it goes without that area, and therefore it it it's part of the justification for the new settlement.
[D Whittaker:] Is there a compromise which says that [cough] rather than increasing the nine thousand seven hundred as suggested a moment ago from the county councils own point of view that nine thousand seven hundred should be decreased on a new settlement.... I'm not putting forward that as my position. But that is what I understand is the county council's position.
[Mr E Barnett:] [whispering] [] Can we just ponder that, erm [whispering] []. chair.
[Mr P Brighton:] county council. I mean that that is one possible approach of doing it that you instead of taking the figure of nine thousand seven hundred in policy H one you refer to it as being eight thousand three hundred, or whatever figure you might happen to come up with. And then make a separate statement on swearing the policy that er a new settlement of approximately X dwellings will be er provided in relation to the Greater York area or even round of type of form of dwelling you think is appropriate. And that is one way of doing it. Erm [LAUGHTER] it's just this is one alternative, yes?
[Mr Peter Davies:] But it it strikes me that you need to do some critical rewording of that policy H one in order to reflect this situation. If as I suspect from what Mr has said that that the there is some reluctance to start revamping the Greater York in quotes figures.... Yes? Then we have to revamp. We have to recognize the situation but erm restructure accordingly.
[Mr E Barnett:] Any other comments?... Thank you for that. Can we then come to discussing the outstanding... issue of H two. Erm before we do that Mr do you want to just briefly introduce your additional paper.
[Mr Terry Heselton:] Mm, [clears throat].... your invitation erm on Friday, I've prepared a very brief statement on erm our analysis of the relative erm suitability of each of the sectors around the Greater York area to accommodate a new settlement. Erm you will see that in section one, I've identified six sectors which broadly relate to the main er the primary roots which er cross the Greater York area. And also in section one paragraph one point three I have ranked the criteria set out in policy H two plus two additional criteria of my own, in what I believe to be in their order of significance in relation to the questions that we're considering. In section three erm I set out erm my basis for the valuation of all those criterion for each of the sectors and basically I've adopted erm a fourth grade evaluation of each of the factors and you'll see on table one, which is contained within section two, erm the er the summary of that consideration. And basically the the gradings I've allowed in respect of the performance of each of the factors. Very good performance, acceptable performance, poor performance and very poor performance. Erm I would have liked to have produced some er tables and diagrams to go with this document, but you will appreciate within the time that we had available, erm that there was insufficient time available to er to prepare that but hopefully that will give you er a basis for considering the, relative merits of the various a various erm sectors around York.
[Mr E Barnett:] This is this is only just been laid on the table obviously this morning, hasn't it?
[Mr Terry Heselton:] Yes it has sir, yes.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes and the county are in the same position as everybody else in not having been able to check it. Mr.
[Mr J Cunnane:] . Sir we've only had this for I think for three minutes before the start of the erm of of this erm session, I'm just wondering if we could have ten minutes to read it?
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes fine. We'll have an adjourn we'll adjourn until half past ten, so you've all got chance to read this.... Can we can we now recommence please. Erm before we actually get down discussing this er submission can I just say that we do have another issue to talk about at er two o'clock this afternoon and therefore it means that our discussion will, on this topic, will have to terminate at one o'clock. If we have not got through for what we need to er examine then the proposition is that we should reconvene at five thirty this evening. And the hall is available to us this evening, but I would like to con I think well I hope you will concur that I would like to conclude on H two today. So with that we proceed into er looking at H two. Can I say that we ourselves have also been drafting a set of criteria, er taking on board the various points that were made on Friday morning. Er I also have to reemphasize again that we have in no way we have made up our minds as to whether or not there should be a new settlement, but we have to proceed to discuss the issues as identified. So we were drafting a list of criteria. And equally we were beginning we we had also, discussed the way in which we would approach it sector by sector. And certainly in terms of the sec the sector approach, the one which erm Mr has produced is als almost coterminous with the with the way in which we wanted to look at it. Now can I ask first of all, are you, as we have a paper in front of us, are you happy to continue the discussion of the basis of the sector by sector approach, and in particular the sectors which have been identified by Mr? Cos that I must say that was the way in which we would have wished to have proceeded with the discussion.... We we do have to try to answer this question of whether or not there should be specific guidance about the location. If if we are minded to support a policy for a new settlement.... And I frankly can see no way of being able to answer that question or attempt to answer that question without going through this form of exercise.... Any dissenting voice on that? No? Mr.
[Mr Peter Davies:] Well erm, North Yorkshire. I wouldn't say it was a dissenting voice chairman, erm But er following the discussions on on Friday erm I endeavoured to take erm instructions from on this particular issue which I as far as I was able to do I did. And erm the county council position is as erm I stated at the outset of this exercise. That er erm the county council feels that it's not able to move toward a preferred general location in advance of the detailed assessment of the criteria. That erm the county council is pursuing at this er at this alteration. I er and I put that in solely as er as an update on the on the county council position as I expressed er earlier in the week.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes. Er I I mean I yes that was your attitude in the. Sorry that is the county council's view. It hasn't changed but as we said on Friday morning the D of E amongst others have sugg er expressed a view that the panel ought to try to come up with a general location if we can. And I can see no other way of proceeding than that in which we proposed at the moment. We may not be able to come to a conclusion. Cos we may not have sufficient information. We don't know yet but let us see how we go. Erm s so moving on from that we have a list of crit. Sorry Mr?
[Mr Terry Heselton:] Thank you sir er, Selby District. Erm whilst clearly I'll er I'll do my best to er assist your investigation sir. It's still as as we said on Friday, places I think all the districts but certainly puts the Selby district in, in great difficulty, in in that we've already acknowledged that we feel Selby district is an appropriate location for a new settlement and there are indeed two particular road corridors that that unclear
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes I, we've we've identified these from your submission.
[Mr Terry Heselton:] Well I I'm in difficulty to help you chose which which would be the more appropriate. There are potential areas of search in in growth which the local authority has identified as part of the background work to local planning preparation. But clearly I'm not in a position to reveal the results of of that work in advance of it put into my memory.
[Mr E Barnett:] Well let's let's see how we go. I mean we could well be the exercise that we embark on, could actually eliminate sectors around York. And at least that would be an advance if nothing else. [LAUGHTER] Can we come back to the criteria and I probably ought to refer you lar really to the I I know this is set out a little br a s rather shorthanded fashion. But I think we all know what they mean. There's a slightly different list in the table one produced by Mr, as from the erm the criteria which are set out from the section in paragraph one three of this paper. And I say that because in one three, for example, he doesn't make any reference to the need for the settlement to be free standing as avoid coalescence. Whereas it does figure as one the factors within his table.... If you look at your paragraph one three Mr, under item eight where you say a bracket equals weight. You have five headings there. And if you look at the table one. You actually have six.
[Mr P Brighton:] Yes I'm grateful sir for erm pointing out that omission. Er a reflection of the speed at which it was put together.
[Mr E Barnett:] Precisely. [LAUGHTER] Now [clears throat] if you take the table one and bearing in mind it it it's... reflects reasonably well that that the factors or the criteria which we discussed on Friday morning. Are there any others which people feel ought to be added to that list?... Mr
[Mr J Cunnane:] I'm I I've only just l l looked at this like very er er like everybody else. But er I'm not certain that the criterion two of edge two is in there anywhere. My... erm Could it should be under. Erm
[Mr E Barnett:] Well i i it could be loosely bracketed under six.... I said it was a shorthanded way of
[Mr J Cunnane:] Yeah.
[Mr E Barnett:] expressing the criteria....
[Mr J Cunnane:] Yes, yes yeah...
[speaker004:] I think
[Mr J Cunnane:] I... I I have to say that I I... I I'm not enthusiastic about using this which is so obviously at a report in support of the particular locations, to to look objectively at the criteria. I would prefer it if... er we looked at the criteria and the policy itself, but take useful information from this if if need be. Rather than use this.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mm.
[Mr J Cunnane:] Because it is er... let's face it is er
[Mr E Barnett:] Well le let's put it this way. In the the words of the Mikado I have a little list of own. [cough]
[speaker004:] Creeping little.
[Mr E Barnett:] Perhaps we could see that? [LAUGHTER] We can use that....
[D Whittaker:] There is one criterion which erm I'm not clear about whether Mr has included or not. And then [microphone fault] question of beyond two thousand and six.
[speaker004:] [blowing nose]
[D Whittaker:] Whether... we should include as a consideration whether this particular eighth new settlement in this particular sector would have the capacity to expand beyond two thousand and si [microphone fault] In saying that I'm conscious that we have ducked because as a panel we have to duck. At the moment the question of how big the settlement should be... [cough]
[Mr P Brighton:] , Part of the. I would be entirely happy to have erm an additional consideration relating to possible expansion beyond two thousand and six and I believe that is an entirely sensible way in which to proceed....
[speaker004:] [blowing nose].
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr and Mr, and then Mr.
[Mr R Girt:] , Leeds City. I've er a comment which I think in part it relates to Miss 's observation. That is the relative importance which are attached to regional and sub- regional policies. It seems rather strange to me that something which is patently strategic should come so far down the list of factors even er below satisfactory access for example. [187 1] At this stage obviously the observations which can be particular will related to existing regional and su sub-regional policies. But at the time that the county council had moved to adopt the policy, we may be in the working the context of regional policy to be issued by the Secretary of State. And that may introduce new considerations not available to us today. So I would suggest that regional and sub- regional policies need to occur much higher up the list and er perhaps I would put them at number one if not number two.
[Mr E Barnett:] W well if it wou if it would help I mean I could produce the list that we have in mind. Erm which moves certain things around. I iin the way in which, in the order of consideration.
[speaker004:] [whispering] [].
[Mr E Barnett:] Yeah. Go on then.
[D Whittaker:] Erm, in suggesting that we could use Mr 's papers as a basis for dis [microphone fault] Mr 's order of priorities. But simply using his list and any additional items that we have as a check list, no more than that. So I think that Mr 's point can be covered. Obviously in going through each of these lists, each of these items we want to know. Use participants
[speaker004:] [blowing nose]
[D Whittaker:] a new settlement in this general location would meet that criterion. I don't think we can take the discussion any further than that, otherwise we'd.... But perhaps a pig in a poke.
[Mr E Barnett:] Do you want to take that in the spirit in which it's er made?... Alright? We'll move on. [clears throat] Now just going back to the, sorry, Mr.
[speaker004:] Yes,. We would be very happy to see Mr 's paper used as a check list. But I should like to emphasize the point that expansion beyond two thousand and six is regarded by as having considerable relevance. And that it would be imprudent in the extreme for allowance not to be made for that feature.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes. Yes. [clears throat]... Mr , York City Council. Can I just ask a point of clarification? Erm the phraseology under seven er which deals about satisfactory access. Do I take it to mean that when we come to discuss erm a particular road issue that would be take also to include impact upon the highway network in the area? Yes. Yes. Yeah.... [clears throat] Well if you turn back to the various sectors. Er... I I have to deal with I I say we must er Mr... has put this in as number two on his list, which is local planning authority support. But can I just refer you back to the words of P B G three where it says quite clearly in paragraph thirty three. The proposal is a clear expression of local preference, supported by local planning authorities.... And that must be the underlying, one of the underlying themes i i in considering er this this in considering this review of the area around York. Now in terms of the sectors erm Well I I sh probably shouldn't say this. But c c can we take er start off in the top top left hand corner of the clock face, which in fact is er Mr 's number three where he s he says the A fifty nine, the area astride the A fifty nine and B twelve twenty four within Harrogate d district. And then work our way round with the clock in that er in that way.... Mr.
[Mr Peter Davies:] Thank you chairman., Harrogate Borough Council. Could I seek some clarification from Mr on what he means by the area astride the A fifty nine and the B one two two four. Because erm by the time those roads have left the green belt. Erm in the vicinity of Moor Monkton and Long Marston respectively. Er the roads are about four kilometres apart and, and a valuation would I think be pretty meaningless because conditions er along those two axes do differ in certain respects....
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr.
[Mr P Brighton:] ,. Erm there was in fact a plan submitted with erm this text. Unfortunately because of its size it could not be erm reproduced quickly this morning. However, erm the area concerned basically is the entire segment of the ring that is within Harrogate district. I've tried to relate the sectors to both the principal transport corridors and also in very broad terms district boundaries.
[Mr E Barnett:] So [cough] Just just so we're absolutely certain then, sorry if I if I can just take you back to the the l the areas spelt out in paragraph one one. Little one, A nineteen south. That is Selby district. Right Mr?
[Mr P Brighton:] Correct sir.
[Mr E Barnett:] Selby East we might call that. East of the Ouse. The next one is also, we'll call that Selby West.... Number three is Harrogate district.
[speaker004:] ?
[Mr E Barnett:] Do you want it split, Mr, or not? Or are you happy to take it under this umbrella umbrella heading?
[Mr Peter Davies:] [whispering] []
[Mr E Barnett:] Or happier?
[Mr Peter Davies:] I think as as long,, Harrogate Borough Council. As long as long as everyone recognizes that for an area of that size, er conditions will vary within it. Much significantly, as long as that is recognized I'm happy to proceed on that.
[Mr E Barnett:] Well [cough] if you feel it should be split say so now.
[Mr Peter Davies:] Erm I think we'll leave it as it is.
[Mr E Barnett:] Alright thank you. Then A nineteen north number four, that is Hambledon. Mr okay? Clear? And the last two, they're all as, far as I read it Mr in Ryedale district.
[D Whittaker:] Thank you.
[Mr E Barnett:] Five? Runs from Hambledon round to the east. Six? Let's try the A sixty four. How much falls in Hambledon and how much falls in Selby? On six. Mr, I turn to you for guidance on that one.
[Mr P Brighton:] Again sir. On the ground the the division between the B one three six three corridor and A sixty four north must be erm a difficult one but again I for convenience I have used the district boundary to divide the two.
[Mr E Barnett:] So are you saying that the six actually falls in Ryedale?
[Mr P Brighton:] Yes sir but erm The cu, the A sixty four north falls entirely within Ryedale.
[D Whittaker:] And can be described as Ryedale east, northeast?
[speaker004:] Northeast.
[Mr E Barnett:] Well as there's only one Ryedale sector perhaps Ryedale east.
[D Whittaker:] The implication of what the chairman just said was that area five was also in Ryedale. Is that not so?
[Mr E Barnett:] That that's not so. Of the er
[D Whittaker:] No part of a area five then in Ryedale
[Mr E Barnett:] No. No it's all in Hambledon. In very broad terms....
[D Whittaker:] So Hambledon splits west to east.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes I wonder if it might help you sir if I erm if I submit a copy of the plan?
[speaker004:] No. No.
[D Whittaker:] Mr it's, I don't think it's helpful to the panel to have these sectors straddling district boundaries. In view of our starting comment on Friday morning, acknowledging that Mr had some reservations about it, was that we had at least aim district.
[speaker004:] [paper rustling]
[Mr E Barnett:] But Mr, sorry to come in. As I read five. You say the area astride the B thirteen sixty three broadly between the boundary of Hambledon district to the west [noise background] and to the east, so it must be Ryedale,
[Mr P Brighton:] Yes.
[Mr E Barnett:] if the Hambledon boundary is on the west. [paper rustling] Can't be anywhere else. Surely.
[Mr P Brighton:] Yes I'm sorry. It's er,. I attempted at first to put this into Ryedale district. Erm and obviously unsuccessfully. The intention is that er this B one three six three six corridor lies broadly within the Hambledon district and its eastern most boundary is roughly contiguous with the Ryedale and Hambledon boundary. And there is an error in five under the description.
[speaker004:] Chairman. Er I wonder if this planning coincidentally, that we've put in with with the commitments which has got the district boundaries on, may be in fact er more helpful in determining the the the one three six three. I in fact would very quickly er in orange just ran the an orange pin up along the line of the one three six three as you will see, it's is primarily within,with primarily within Hambledon district. The one three six three goes out through the Sutton on Forest on Forest does it?
[Mr E Barnett:] Sutton on Forest, yeah. Well I must confess Mr it's it's difficult if we get into a situation where we've got an area straddling two districts and I don't have to say why, in some respects.... If I refer you back to P P G three.
[Mr P Brighton:] Yep, yeah.. The patched lines on the plan which you have in front of you erm are only intended to be indicative. Erm we have not had a great deal of time to put this together. Er and they are merely designed to draw attention to the broad corridors which
[Mr E Barnett:] Yep.
[Mr P Brighton:] I would presume people would interpret to be contiguous with the district boundaries, where a district boundary straddles that line.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yep.
[D Whittaker:] How would you describe your area five in district terms please?...
[Mr P Brighton:] Hambledon North.
[D Whittaker:] As opposed to area four which is Hambledon?
[Mr P Brighton:] Hambledon South.
[D Whittaker:] Thank you....
[speaker004:] [clears throat]
[Mr E Barnett:] So are we clear then both four and five, four certainly lies within Hambledon and five also lies within Hambledon? Is that the way we are going to bring mo move forward?
[Mr P Brighton:] Well yes, yes.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes, thank you. Is everyone else clear about that?... Mr.
[Mr R Girt:] Sir from. I'm just having regard to criterion four of policy H two. It says have good access or be able to provide good access to the primary road network. And when I refer to the erm primary road network defined in the T P P. I see that the one three six three doesn't form part of the primary road network. And I just wondered if it would ease the discussion if we omitted that particular corridor?
[Mr E Barnett:] Well this is why we were trying to relate it to districts.
[D Whittaker:] Which we have now done.
[Mr E Barnett:] Which we have done. Alright?
[Mr R Girt:] Mhm.
[Mr E Barnett:] Right.... Can we now go through... criteria by criteria? And you've got to try and relate this back to the areas as we have now as we now understand them.... The first one identified by Mr says avoid the green belt. And there there is no doubt that the areas identified do avoid the green belt. They lie outside it.... Moving to number two on his list and I'm referring to table one. Forget the weighting, we just run through the check list, just run through the check list. Local planning authority support and here I refer you back to P P G three. These words will be inscribed on your heart before we finish today. The proposal is a clear expression of local preference supported by local planning authorities. Now Mr in his table has identified, four double Xs.... Now the question is, is that correct? Because my understanding of the situation is that Harrogate have expressed, I'll come to you in a moment Mr, Harrogate have expressed support in principal for the idea of a new settlement. But here they are credited with a double X, astride the A fifty nine. And Ryedale again have also expressed support for the idea of a new settlement. But they're credited with a double X. But I'm also aware in the context of the A fifty nine sector, and this may well be your point, Mr, that Leeds would have, to put it succinctly, a dim view, about a new settlement in that sector because of the fact it may draw off erm regeneration effort in in the Leeds metropolitan district. Is that the point that you wanted to make?
[Roy Donson:] Yes,. Yes yes it is. I think you've assumed the answer to my question which was going to be to, addressed to Mr. To clarify which local planning authorities would be party to the agreement of the location of a new settlement. Whether it be the planning authorities with er contiguous boundaries to the location of the new settlement area. Or simply those local planning authorities within the county area with whom which the new settlement proposal lay.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you Mr.
[Mr Peter Davies:] Can I develop that
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes.
[Mr Peter Davies:] point as well? And in reference to what it said. North Yorkshire in the P P G. And can I put for erm in the P P G. Could I put forward a scenario to you, which I haven't really thought through. That being that the county council and yourselves consider this strategically. Clearly the best location ought to be at point eight. Which, shall we say, we are talking about the A fifty nine, is along the A fifty nine corridor. Erm that quite clear, that is the best solution. It could e just as equally be else where. What would happen if the district council didn't support it yet the county council er supported it? And quite clearly the strategic benefits erm justified a new settlement on say the A fifty nine corridor. And really I'm looking to here. What does it mean? Does it mean that county and district have got to sign up for it? If it's and district as well. Is there not the possibility that er a district that is not happy could er prejudice what is sound strategic planning er policy?
[Mr E Barnett:] That's a fast one at this time of the morning Mr. [cough]
[D Whittaker:] Can I perhaps offer to give give Mr a bit more thinking time and suggest that a local plan which did not contain something which was in the structure plan, as a proposal would not be in accord with the structure plan. Could I also give Mr a bit more thinking time by going off on another angle? I think it's important in considering the question of local authority to support, to remember the basis on which the advice in P P G three is predicated. And I don't I think it is no accident that the seconds criterion is the second criterion not the first criterion. It is the second criterion because the first step is to reject the alternatives.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mm. Yeah.
[D Whittaker:] And therefore whilst it may be that district councils will have to take some reservations, in expressing support. And that may be a bit mild for the position they find themselves in. From our discussion last week it is clear they have rejected the alternative. Mr.
[Mr Malcolm Spittle:] . I shall do my best to answer the questions, chairman. But I I must say it fills me with trepidation. Erm as I understand the way P P G three was drafted, this was in response to the circumstances which had appertained before February ninety two. R r right around the country in all sorts of different locations, we'd seen applications coming forward on a speculative basis. The one which...
[D Whittaker:] Can you move the microphone?
[Mr E Barnett:] Can you move the mike? Yeah, move the mike.
[Mr Malcolm Spittle:] The one which was highlighted in the H B F paper in Nottinghamshire was quite clearly before P P P P G three came out. Erm it came as no surprise to me to read the the issue of that that particular proposal. You notice right at the top of the column of that particular page, er when it's highlighting that er that history. It does say they're almost invariable deeply controversial. And in the light of this experience the Secretary of State take the view that, and then goes on to list all the factors. So it seems to me that these were a set of circumstances trying to overcome the previous bad situation which has applied. Now I I construe that, the way that's constructed to mean that er when we're say that the tide had turned against new settlements, as some districts were doing at the time this came out. We thought what that meant, er it'd certainly turn turn against this speculative proposal. And I think it would now be most unlikely for a speculative proposal that hadn't come through a planning system to succeed. Now clearly in saying that, I I can only er say what we believe. And it wouldn't, you would never know for certain until a speculative proposal was actually put to the test. Well I certainly I believe that to be the case. Now as for the difference between county and district, Mr 's point is a very very valid one. They're the authority charged with producing a strategic plan for the area. In that obviously they have to take on board the views of their constituent districts. And three or four of them like this, they have to try and come up with the the right solution. So in theory it's possible for the county solution at the end of the day to be not completely in line with what its constituent districts think.
[Mr E Barnett:] Aha.
[Mr Malcolm Spittle:] The Secretary of State, I'm sure would would obviously have to take on board what was embodied in the final structure plan. But I think in deciding his actions before the actual approval of the plan, he would ne need to take on board any difference of opinion between the county and district on an issue of this kind. And i it may be, for instance, erm that he may even have to intervene at the modification stage if something was going seriously wrong. All I all I think I would say at this stage is let's wait and see whether the county and one district are in line on the question of the the new settlement. If that happens I would think there would be a reasonable pro for succ reasonable prospect for success. And my guess would be, and it can only be a guess, that if there actually was disagreement between a county and the prospective recipient of a new settlement, then I suspect that that the Secretary of State would not want such proposals to proceed. And that's purely expression of opinion off the top of my head. I simply have no idea of how it would proceed in practice.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mm.
[Mr Malcolm Spittle:] Sorry I can't be more helpful than that.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yeah, the difficulty is at the moment of course, the Secretary of State does not, is not the erm person responsible for approving the structure plan. The the final the final desic well the decision will rest with the county council. But the Secretary of State ob has obviously got reserved power if he if he feels obliged to step in.
[Mr Malcolm Spittle:] Mm.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr.
[Mr J Cunnane:] Yeah er. Could I please draw attention er you already chairman have, but it's important from where I stand to draw attention to the words of the second criterion of the P P G. Which says that the proposal is a clear expression of local preference supported by the local planning authorities. Erm, to my knowledge and I'd be corrected if I'm wrong on this. Local preference hasn't or local views have not been canvassed about these locations that we're now discussing. So the question, whether or not there's there is a clear expression to my, to my mind cannot be answered. Second point I'd make is that in relation to the table one. Erm weighting, I'm sorry. It it's indic indic to the relevant performance in relation to the A nineteen and the A sixty four. Er they're both given very good performance. Er I presume on the basis that Selby district council have expressed a support for them. And I just need to come back to the point that my client certainly doesn't support either of them. Er and to that extent, as we have set out in our evid in our submissions. Er our client is a local employer of long standing who is concerned about the local environment and erm, objects most strongly to these locations. Er so to that extent local preference is not satisfied in that case, even though Selby district council have expressed a preference.
[D Whittaker:] But is it not true Mr that your client rejects the alternative of expansion of existing settlements?
[Mr J Cunnane:] Er not necessarily in the way you've expressed it. Er my client expr er rejects the expansion of Tadcaster as one of the potential, as as one possible expan er er settlement, yes.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr.
[D Whittaker:] , Ryedale district. I would agree with Mr that none of the proposals are a clear expression of local preference because none of them have actually been considered by the the local people within each of the districts. However, going back to the table, the second criteria local planning authorities support. Ryedale supports the principal of a new settlement. It has never answered the question whether or not it is appropriate in Ryedale. So I don't think that the two crosses which is given on the A sixty four north.
[Mr E Barnett:] Can can can yes can you just disregard the weighting.
[D Whittaker:] Right.
[Mr E Barnett:] Disregard the weighting. just.
[D Whittaker:] Well I I say that that at the best I think it it's just a question mark or a dash.
[Mr E Barnett:] Put a tick. Just put a tick or a cross, you know, which is what we're trying to do.
[D Whittaker:] I think it's neither in in Ryedale's case. It supports the principal but not necessarily whether or not it should be in Ryedale. Because it's
[Mr E Barnett:] Right.
[D Whittaker:] never been considered by members. Is, are you saying then that the best answer to the question of is there a clear expression of local preference is, don't know? But reject the option of expansion of existing settlements? . I think the question is, if it is a clear expression of local preference it certainly isn't don't know. But It's not? whether it's, whether it's Well it's don't know because no one 's ever been up, no-one's ever asked the question of the people in any of the districts as to whether, you know a new settlement in their district is appropriate. But they have obviously an the members and the local have as agreed with the principal of a new settlement to meet the assessed development needs of the Greater York Area. So in in ef in effect that question should be could be divided into two parts. Local preference, no. Local authority er support, don't know, in Ryedale's case. Do you actually know local preference answer no? Yeah. No. Yeah.
[speaker004:] [LAUGHTER]
[D Whittaker:] I thought I'd only got the flu! Erm [LAUGHTER] Suspect I shall need brain surgery by the end of the morning. [LAUGHTER] How d, I'm sorry I don't understand how you know the local preference is not for a new settlement. No, I don't. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that I don't know what local preference is, in terms of where it should go. Because no one in any of the North Yorkshire area has been canvassed as to whether or not they should have a new settlement. But I do know that in s in the sort of southern southern Ryedale area, the support was definitely for a new settlement to meet the assessed needs of the Greater York area. Because it wasn't considered that that the level of housing required could be accommodated in that area. So the principal is supported both by the members and by the public.
[Mr E Barnett:] Ah.
[D Whittaker:] But the location isn't... yet.
[Mr E Barnett:] So you have a local, you have support both by the local authority and quote the local population for the idea of a, for the idea of a new settlement?
[D Whittaker:] Yes.
[Mr E Barnett:] Could, or could not be maintained depending on its location. Putting words in your mouth. But there there is no clear indication that south Ryedale or Ryedale district should be the recipient. There's no expression of support that Ryedale should be the recipient of a new settlement as yet? Because that question has not been posed.
[D Whittaker:] Yes.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you. Yeah. And in fact if if... if if er we look along this line, at the moment we as I said in my introduction we have two districts or three districts who have expressed support for the principal, and of those of those one has given a clear indication that it would, this might be too, er high a phrase, welcome a new settlement, within its district. Mr, that that is probably a clear expression of the of Selby as a local authority, that's a that's a clear expression of their stance, isn't it?
[Mr Terry Heselton:] Er yes er it well, more more or less. Er I think perhaps er wel welcome er
[Mr E Barnett:] Well er don't er er don't use the word welcome I have indicated... yes yes, alright
[Mr Terry Heselton:] I I will qualify the the general spirit of what was said.
[Mr E Barnett:] And now is that view also an expression of local preference or local support in terms of the public at large in Selby district? What has their their view been?
[Mr Terry Heselton:] , Selby district. Erm the the public at large in Selby district have er been consulted to the same degree that that that all er districts were involved in the Greater York study. So in other words, acceptance of the of the principal in preference
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes.
[Mr Terry Heselton:] to the alternative of of expansion of existing settlements.
[Mr E Barnett:] Right.
[Mr Terry Heselton:] But clearly they haven't been consulted on preferred locations.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mhm. Mr.
[Mr P Brighton:] [clears throat], Hambledon district council. There are two points er chairman.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yeah.
[Mr P Brighton:] The first relates to er a point made by the senior inspector about the list in er paragraph thirty three of P P G three. I don't think that they can be taken to be in any particular order. Certainly not in a des descending order of importance. And I know that they are not prefaced by one two three or any other form of indication, which would er suggest that they are in any order. Erm, it's clearly states that a new settlement should be only contemplated where, and it's my opinion, that all those factors need to be met and they are not weighted within that er paragraph. The second point is that Hambledon's position on the new settlement erm is unambiguous. We have a clear resolution that it objects to the new settlement on the basis that it is not needed and cannot be justified. And the reasons er for that, it is not necessary to go into them again, we have been through them erm on the erm erm er previous days. I would say however, that it's not been tested whilst, and whilst there isn't a a clear expression of local preference in terms of the population, I think my elected members who represent that particular area would say that they are expressing local views when they have spoken against the new settlement. Thank you.
[Mr E Barnett:] Is it Miss or Mrs? Can I can I just take Mr first and then come to you? Mr.
[Mr Peter Davies:] Harro Harrogate borough council. Just briefly to reiterate the borough council's position. Harrogate borough council have rejected er the continued expansion of er settlements around its sector of York and villages within the York green belt. We support the principal of a new settlement. Erm but my councillors haven't yet taken a view on whether there is a possible site in Harrogate district. Er the reason for that is as already mentioned, that a comprehensive assessment hasn't been done. When that comprehensive assessment is available, er my members will take a view. Thank you.
[Mr E Barnett:] Miss
[Mr Terry Heselton:] for. I really just wanted to speak in support of. The point I'd like to make is that we're here representing and a number of the parish councils in the Selby area. The fact that they've chosen to have somebody representing them in objection to the new settlement proposal I think is as strong an indication as you can get that the local people don't actually support the council on this point.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes, yep.
[D Whittaker:] That refers exclusively to parish councillors in Selby district?
[Mr Terry Heselton:] The people I'm representing are, but obviously
[Mr E Barnett:] Yep.
[Mr Terry Heselton:] there are other people around the table saying that for other districts.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes your your view relates to parishes in a part of Selby district?
[Mr Terry Heselton:] Yes, that's right. But it it tends to be that
[Mr E Barnett:] Yep.
[Mr Terry Heselton:] much of the area that would be under consideration for a new
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes. yep
[Mr Terry Heselton:] settlement.
[Mr E Barnett:] Well it's the sector west of the Ouse, isn't it?
[Mr Terry Heselton:] Yes it is.
[Mr E Barnett:] It, it Yes. Yeah. Mr did you want to come back on something?
[Mr P Brighton:] No.
[Mr E Barnett:] Well are we in a position now to put ticks or crosses against two on the list in table one? In the light of what we've said?
[speaker004:] got a lot more than ticks or crosses.
[Mr E Barnett:] Sorry?
[speaker004:] got a lot more than ticks or crosses.
[Mr E Barnett:] want to, or then again, pardon? No. No, no alright, no ok. Can we now move on to item item three what criteria three is under table one. Located within ten miles of York. Well in fact the discussion on Friday morning... went along the lines that the new settlement should be located within six to eight miles or six to ten miles. So I'm inclined to sort of look at it under those, er, within those distances and is there any descent with er... Mr 's analysis of his sectors, that they would fit within that er, those general distances?
[D Whittaker:] Mr.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr?
[Mr R Girt:] , Leeds City council. I simply make the observation that ten miles is a rather arbitrary figure. And that the reality of geography is that people will chose to live or develop in accessible locations. Some of these roads mentioned as though the focus of the the sectors erm have a much higher capacity and much greater speed capability than others and in terms of relative accessibility to the centre of York, probably you could come further out west on the A sixty four than on perhaps on the B one three six three, for example. This this could take you into the Leeds district as being a suitable location for a settlement which would meet this criterion. And in fact it might be useful for you to know, chair, that proposals for new settlements have been made on the A sixty four corridor within Leeds.
[speaker004:] Yeah.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes, well I mean we're aware of that and of course we went through this question of distances on Friday. Erm, and I think there was a general agreement that we would look at this six to eight six to ten miles. Was there, was there not? I mean there are other factors which come into play, we accept that. But this is one of one of which we did agree was was a suitable factor to be considered in the er in the analysis.
[D Whittaker:] Would the districts agree if the area of [break in recording] to eight miles. That there would be areas within those sectors which would be suitable for a new a new settlement....
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr.
[D Whittaker:] Certainly on the A sixty four corridor there is a belt of grade two land that sweeps in west to east. Er around the eight mile limit. I would prefer it to see it extended to ten miles if that sector was chosen. Purely so that the area of land, or the area of search could be expanded to possibly avoid areas of high quality agricultural land. So you would say yes to six to ten miles but Yes question mark six to eight?
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr, sorry. Sorry. So has anybody got any com any other comments about the individual sectors in the light of that? Mr
[Mr J Cunnane:] Sir.
[Mr E Barnett:] We'll have to give you a new name.
[Mr J Cunnane:] [LAUGHTER].. Just dealing with Mr 's point. We have in fact done some detailed agricultural surveys in this area of York. In fact the grade two land tends to be in the eight to ten mile band, rather than six to eight. It's a matter of fact rather than rather than rather than a matter what is shown on the one inch map. Thank you.
[Mr E Barnett:] Before we get on to this next item, would it be a suitable place to break for, time to break for coffee? Er and resume at twenty five to twelve. Thank you.... [break coffee] We've, I will remind you that we've had an expression of view from Ryedale about the district factor. Any of the other districts want to make comments about that? Any one else? Mr.
[Mr Terry Heselton:] , Selby district. Just just to briefly say that er I would prefer the the the ten mile limit because of the greater flexibility that it will give.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yeah. Thank you, yes sorry?
[D Whittaker:] Are you saying that six to eight miles would not be, you would not be able to find a location for a new settlement in
[Mr Terry Heselton:] It would
[D Whittaker:] either sector within six to eight miles?
[Mr Terry Heselton:] It would limit the choice.
[D Whittaker:] Sorry, that wasn't my question. [LAUGHTER] Blatantly it would limit the choice. [paper tearing] Is it, would it make it impossible?
[Mr Terry Heselton:] Well I I'm I'm sorry, I really can't respond to that.
[Mr E Barnett:] You'd lose the flexibility factor? Thank you. Any one else want to make any comments about this, or can I move on to what is headed in Mr 's criteria, area of no market demand, and... one in which we had described, and it may well be coincidental, mean the same thing, be in a location where people want to live.... Now who's going to make comments about the various sectors, Miss.
[Mr Terry Heselton:] Fiona,. I just wanted to point out that on this criteria, it doesn't appear to be one that the county council has listed. And I think we should look at this in a, cautiously because, erm, it it doesn't refer specifically to York. I think it should be qualified and say area of no market demand related to York, settlement. This particular erm, problem with it being market demand, possibly from West Yorkshire, in certain locations.
[Mr E Barnett:] It well I say one it was one of the aspects that was that tha that cropped up in our discussion about the criteria on Friday and as far as we're concerned, what we are trying to do is not er to exclude anything from the discussion in terms of er trying to locate or find a suitable location. We can't do that at this stage. So we felt it reasonable to put that into the pot for discussion.
[Mr Terry Heselton:] But I I feel it should possibly be tied in with six, rather than being considered on its own.
[Mr E Barnett:] Aha, [clears throat].
[D Whittaker:] Can we ask Mr how it was that he eliminated three sectors? Or put Xs, I beg his pardon, put Xs against three sectors?
[Mr P Brighton:] Thank you. You anticipated a point I was going to make in fact. And that is I was just a little concerned that you were possibly considering an additional criterion, as I've got a note of it here. Being in a location where people wish to live. Because that's really erm a part of what I mean by this criterion. And I think probably erm there is another issue which is equally important and that is the question that it must be a location where people who develop employment wish to locate and erm and develop enterprises. Because I see it is of fundamental importance to achieving the environmental objectives for the new settlement and making it a decent place to live. That there is a real prospect of jobs going to that new settlement. And in my view, and I think this is a view shared by the county council. At least it's in one of their statements er on the new settlement issue. Erm the areas to the south and west of north, that's erm Harrogate and the Selby sectors, erm, I think are most able to offer erm a good location. And in that respect I think the A sixty four i is the better of those three sectors because of its existing dual carriageway link. And that is the basis in which I have scored this particular criterion in my table.
[D Whittaker:] Can you us a bit more explanation as to why you say the first three sectors are better than the last three, in terms of employment?
[Mr P Brighton:] Well if I could refer you, ma'am, to my paragraph three point seven of my supplementary statement, erm I do indicate there erm that the factors which make me believe that a location in this sector or these three sectors erm is a better one in far, as far as employment is concerned. It's it's much nearer the strategic road network. The A one, the A one M, M sixty two and M one, than any of the other sectors. And erm as I've said before the A sixty four corridor or the A sixty four road is already an existing high quality dual carriageway road. And there is the factor that there is a need to diversify the economy of York generally erm and also erm to ensure that the new settlement has an employment component. Both to provide for some self-containment, and thereby minimize the degree of out-commuting. And also as a, a to form a sort of living erm community where there is opportunity to work locally.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr, then Mr then Mr.
[Mr J Cunnane:] Michael. In terms of being in the area where people want to live. I d I d, from certainly my experience of Greater York I don't think there is, er I I personally feel that all the sectors would be reasonably successful on that basis. Erm, I d I certainly can see the commercial success of a new settlement in the south east of York, or south west of York, but that's because it would be attracting commuters from West Yorkshire. Not not because it would be meeting the housing needs of York. Certainly we have done marketing studies of a Succe of a set in the north east of York, and they show that it would be commercially successful. And it would be attractive to people wanting to live in that area. In terms of the employment, in terms of employment, the first most important point is of course we are talking about, generating employment at a scale appropriate to the new settlement. We're not talking about a major business park for Greater York. Again, we have put in a letter from an agent which quite clearly shows in his professional opinion, that a new settlement would be successful. The employment base of a new settlement would be successful. And certainly there is a good deal of empirical evidence to show also that it would be successful. Most of the new employment creation around York has been in the northern sector, not in the southern sector. It has been commercially successful. Defton Airfield is on is the most important example. The A sixty four is capable of generating major employer gen er being attracted to major employers. And I er addressing your attention ma'am to, particularly to, the erm M A F F laboratory, which has been established at Sand Hutton, which is a maj, going to be a very major employer, located immediately adjacent to, well within this particular sector. I'm quite convinced that that the A sixty four corridor north east of York would fulfil the criterion which you refer to and and I think that in general all the sectors score reasonably well against this against this particular criterion.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr I think.
[Mr R Girt:] [clears throat]. left, erm P P G twelve and the draft P P G thirteen has a thrust of guidance there that erm talks about a closer relationship between the home and the workplace. If you look at appendix five of my statement in which I've identified erm the key employers within the Greater York area, you'll see that there's a greater concentration in the north and north east, as as Mr has just said. You've got the M A F F erm development on the A sixty four corridor. You also have a concentration of retail and leisure development to the north and north east of York, in Monk Cross, your Clifton Moor and so on and so forth. And clearly I would say that rather than to cross it in that column shown to the A sixty four north that Mr shows, it should be the converse and at least a tick, if not two.
[D Whittaker:] The two sectors being?
[Mr R Girt:] Sorry I I'm I'm
[D Whittaker:] You're
[Mr R Girt:] saying to you that the that you should ei that that the A sixty four corridor has a close relationship to the existing employment areas
[D Whittaker:] Yes.
[Mr R Girt:] to the north.
[Mr E Barnett:] So you so so you would say the A sixty four north would be a favoured one in the context of this this criteria? Or what we like,
[Mr R Girt:] Absolutely because we've
[Mr E Barnett:] what we're talking about.
[Mr R Girt:] That's right because you you've an ability there to locate housing close to existing employment as well as erm leisure facilities and retail facilities and that would, in my view would follow on advice in P P G twelve and P, draft P P G thirteen.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yeah.
[D Whittaker:] In your opinion does that, do those comments apply to the other two sectors, north of York?
[Mr R Girt:] Cer certainly it would be other sectors to the north of York can can draw some comfort from from that the the comment that I've made as well.
[D Whittaker:] What about the the other three sectors, the first three sectors?
[Mr R Girt:] These these are the ones to the south?
[D Whittaker:] South and west.
[Mr E Barnett:] South and west.
[Mr R Girt:] Yeah, well they're obviously more distance away from the key employers to they aren't so well located.
[Mr Peter Davies:] Peter, North Yorkshire County Council. I suppose it's really proof of what er the approach that North Yorkshire County Council is taking on this issue because nothing is is as simple a as it seems. Mr and Mr, quite rightly as a matter of fact, suggest that er most of the employment development over the last ten years has taken place on the north side of York. That is absolutely factually correct. The reason is of course that that is where the opportunities have arisen through the planning process. On the south side of York and the south west of York, those oppor opportunities have not arisen. Because in the south and south west of York it has been very heavily constrained erm by green belt. Er, that hasn't been the case in the past with the er areas er to the north. So that's one side of the equation. On the other side of the equation if I look at Mr er sorry er Mr Mr scoring of four, I would find some of the crosses rather surprising. Er one has only to walk down the road here for example at Strensall... but equally, the first point I made would be to contradict perhaps what Mr and Mr have said er because the the difference in employment distribution is a reflection of the pop planning policies that have been followed over the last ten years.
[D Whittaker:] How would you score the six sectors? Mr?
[Mr Peter Davies:] Well Certainly I I I would take the view that erm erm County Council would take that overall the York area overall is an area er of quite strong demand. Er but it really needs to be looked at er in some detail. I think the York area's an attractive area er er for development. While there may be nuances between different r chart, er could indicate that we haven't got any clear er how s chart, er could indicate that we haven't got any clear er how we've marked on there where there were objections to the greenbelt local plan, largely to take areas out of the greenbelt towards of the edge of the greenbelt for development. And those are quite fairly distributed er all the way round York. Erm I wouldn't want to erm to go through this this exercise scoring two ticks, two crosses er on on on each of the sectors. A because the work hasn't been done What I'm trying to do is er to say give a balanced approach which seems to me to reflect the County Council's view that er you really can't do it on the basis of a a a quick subjective assessment, it really needs to be the result of a l of a detailed body of work.
[D Whittaker:] I'm sorry Mr, I think we have to press you on this, can I can I take it from what you have said We have to press you because for the reasons we explained on Friday morning, we have to go through the sector sites, if only to find at the end it cannot be done. Can I take it from what you said that you would not differentiate between the sectors on this criterion?
[Mr Peter Davies:] I'll repeat what I said chairman, and I hope it was helpful that in terms of er er demand, I think all sectors would indicate that there is erm er demand er development demand, marked demand erm right the way er around Greater York. What I cannot do er is advise you on how I would score one sector against another in respect of that because again, er we haven't looked at that in sufficient detail....
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you, Mr? Thank you chair, David, York City Council. I'd just really like to pick up on the employment argument. Erm er to pick up on what Mr said, I think it's important to differentiate between the local employment requirements of the new settlement and the strategic employment question. Mr implies that a location to the South of York er would actually be better in strategic employment terms. Now whilst I might concur with that view if it was er well related to the A sixty four, in fact immediately adjacent to the A sixty four, I think given the criteria you've got that the new settlement clearly has to avoid the greenbelt, I think that actually any of the locations being ten miles s sorry six to ten miles outside of the York urban area, would play little role in meeting the strategic employment needs of the urban area. So I think actually it at that level, these sectors are really quite uniform. Erm I think possibly what's more important is the i potential protraction of local employment to those individual locations. And erm er my view would be that either of the north north east or southern sectors could accommodate suitable levels of development to meet local need. Thank you that's helpful. Mr and then Mr.
[speaker004:] . Criterion ten of policy H two provides for a balanced unity with adequate land for employment. I think it's rather important in connection with the north eastern A sixty four sector to realize that and reference has been made to the M A F F Central Science Laboratory, that it was a condition specified by M A F F in nineteen ninety, that their site should be a green field site free of airborne pollution. And it was on that basis that they decided to go to the point near Sand Hutton where provision has now been made for them. If one realizes that there is inevitably some degree of pollution from certain types of industry, it seems rather un unlikely that that requirement of the M A F F would be satisfied, were industrial development to take place on the A sixty four northeastern corridor.
[Mr E Barnett:] Do you want to comment on that Mr or not? I mean are you saying Mr in actual fact if we take the reverse of what you what you said that the the M A F F establishment itself would would object to development being within a certain distance of its premises because of the requirements which they have in order to carry on their operations?
[speaker004:] I don't
[Mr E Barnett:] In in other words is there a safeguarding zone?
[speaker004:] I I don't know whether M A F F would object, but they did lay down for the selection of their site.
[Mr Peter Davies:] Peter, North Yorkshire, I hope Mr is not suggesting that it would be the intention of the County or the District pursuing the new settlement to er include within it er polluting industry. Quite clearly er
[speaker004:] [LAUGHTER]
[Mr Peter Davies:] that would not be the scenario that we would be looking at.
[Mr Terry Heselton:] Thank you chairman, Terry, Selby District. Erm I think Mr and and Mr between them have have covered most of what I wanted to say so I'll I'll just endorse those points but the the other matter. I think it it it's been suggested that er in s in some way that the employment aspect of the new settlement w would in some way prejudice erm regional objectors in in terms of Leeds regardment and I really just wanted to to flag up that that I can't accept that, given the scale of development that that's proposed. Erm e even if the erm the new settlement employment allowance was doubled, I can hardly see how twenty five hectares is is is going to prejudice Leeds' own er economic development plans. Particularly when when the City Council themselves are promoting in the region of a hundred hectares of of development adjacent to the A one well well outside the city.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes yes yeah. Mr and then Mr.
[Mr R Girt:] Just re Chris from Wood Frampton, just returning to the comments made by Mr, erm we are on behalf of the church commissioners promoting a new settlement proposal, immediately to the North of the M A F F Central Science Laboratory. Erm that isn't a constraint to consideration of new settlement sites in the A sixty four corridor. Erm when the church commissioners sold the land to erm M A F F for the Central Sc Science Laboratory, a Cordon Sanitaire was declared wh within which no development should take place which would not preclude any any sites Northeast of York.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you. Mr?
[Mr P Brighton:] Paul,. If I could just respond to erm one point which I think was made by Mr who referred to the erm the York trading er Clifton Road Trading estates. Erm we have actually taken the views of one of the developers on that site and you'll see erm the letter that we received from him is included within our appendix nine. And I think he can be regarded as having had first hand and very real experience of the problems of developing erm employment uses in the Greater York area. And he gave a very clear view that erm a new settlement in the area to the south of York would be a much better prospect as a location for new inward investment into the area.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr are you
[Mr Terry Heselton:] Sorry.
[Mr E Barnett:] It's alright. Anyone else? Anyone else want to make any comments about under this item four? Can we move on and look at what Mr has er expressed as landscape impact. Er in fact the discussion on Friday was re tied back to the criterion in the County Council's er policy which says, [reading] be capable of being assimilated satisfactorily into the local landscape [] which in the course of the discussion, was erm extended to also take on board the possibility that it could be located where it may produce environmental improvements on the use of derelict land. And I don't think I don't think I'm leaving anything out on that and I don't think I'm misinterpreting where the discussion went on Friday. So in in terms of looking at this criterion, can you also er include within your thinking process, the need for the er or the possibility that the development of a new settlement could actually be a positive enhancement of the environment or make use of derelict land. Any comments? Mr?
[Mr P Brighton:] Er... Michael, Hambledon district Council. Erm the first point I'd like to make erm on this issue erm is that Mr erm seems to have assessed this criterion solely with reference to landscape quality. I don't think that this is a valid approach. Erm the question is one of integration. Erm variation in topography, and degree of cover are all associated with landscape quality. But these are the very factors which can assist integration into the countryside, minimizing the urbanizing impact. Looking specifically at the two areas in Hambledon, erm I would point out a Mr appears to make a distinction between the two areas, now I'm not sure on what basis Mr does that, or whether he has undertaken some detailed landscape assessment, but I can say that Hambledon has commissioned a detailed landscape appraisal for its district wide local plan, which didn't show a distinction erm generally across that area. Erm the landscape within that area is generally flat. Erm that factor has enhanced its value for agriculture and intensification has led to a wholesale loss of features. The landscape is flat and open, erm the these these factors erm have reduced inter-visibility, long distance views erm are possible over extensive areas. Those man made features which are within that landscape are particularly prominent. That's just farm buildings and farms themselves. The Council believes it would be very very difficult to assimilate a lan erm a new settlement into this area successfully and that a new settlement in this a area would have an urbanizing impact far beyond the confines of the er immediate area. Looking at the particular issue of derelict areas erm within this area, er Hambledon doesn't erm believe that there are any areas which could be reclaimed or enhanced by a new settlement. Erm and I really would ask the panel on this particular issue erm to er look critically at the suggestion in P P G three, paragraph thirty three that a new settlement could upgrade areas of low landscape value. Erm from a personal point of view, I don't really find it credible that planking down fourteen hundred houses in the Vale of York could be said to improve landscape quality....
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr?
[Mr Peter Davies:] Thank you chairman. Lindsay, er Harrogate Borough Council. Could I endorse a lot of what er Mr has said there, about er the issue being the ability of the landscape to assimilate er a major development. Not its inherent quality. Er many points which Mr has made about the nature of the landscape in the southern part of the Hambledon District, would apply equally to large tracts of er Harrogate District in terms of it being an open erm rural landscape, intensively farmed and relatively little woodland cover or topography to assist in the assimilation process. Erm I think that those are erm er disadvantages with which any er possible location in Harrogate er District would start and I don't think the assessment in Mr 's paper er accurately reflects either the criterion in the structure plan er in terms of assimilation, or indeed the nature of the landscape erm and what I know of it in the Harrogate District. Thank you chairman.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr....
[Mr J Cunnane:] Er Joe, Associates. Erm it's can I draw attention please to a a erm report which you'll find in the Michael erm submissions in appendix two. Er where this is a report of the er County Council. Er if I can get date. Er it's sixth of January nineteen ninety two. Definition of for a new settlement around York. And I I would simply draw attention to paragraph two of that report er in the second last sentence in the paragraph it says Well I'd better actually read the er the whole paragraph. It says, [reading] The report concludes that on balance, the most appropriate area of research for a new settlement Greater York is the corridor along the A sixty four T on the North East of York. This area beyond the greenbelt will shortly benefit from the dualling of the A sixty four. The area contains no mineral workings, limited high quality agricultural land, and offers scope for assimilating a new settlement into the landscape []. Now if you then look at Mr 's scoring of the A sixty four north, it says, [reading] offers very poor performance []. Er I simply draw the attention of the panel to that to the obvious conflict between those two er conclusions.
[D Whittaker:] What's your view?
[Mr J Cunnane:] Well
[D Whittaker:] Is it ticks or crosses? That sector.
[Mr J Cunnane:] M my view about this is that it's it it is it is that this exercise is that it is er something which has been done very quickly and to my mind is not capable of providing the level of assessment that would be required.
[D Whittaker:] No, sorry I wasn't asking for view on the exercise done by Mr. What I was asking was, in your view, does the A sixty four north sector landscape have the capacity to a absorb the new settlement?
[Mr J Cunnane:] I haven't carried the exercise out but I would simply say that it's it's not valid to to do an exercise like this in the way that this is done. That's my view of it, er I I can't respond to you because I haven't done the exercise. So I can't give you my view.
[D Whittaker:] Do you have a view about the sector around in Selby?
[Mr E Barnett:] Around Tadcaster.
[Mr J Cunnane:] Yes I I erm I I I certainly do er and
[speaker004:] [LAUGHTER]
[Mr J Cunnane:] I I have to I I know that you're going you that that that you may suggest that er my view it's not capable of being assimilated but I think the the the basic view I have to put forward to you is that it is not necessary. It's as simple as that. It's like Mr said, this settlement is not necessary. If however er the panel differs with my view on that then I would certainly say that the area around Tadcaster could not satisfactorily accommodate a self contained settlement of the order that is proposed without serious damage to the landscape.
[D Whittaker:] Why?
[Mr J Cunnane:] Because of the level of urbanization that would be created in in i i in the area....
[D Whittaker:] Ian, Ryedale District. Erm that County Council report that Mr quoted was done without any detailed landscape assessment and I think that's a major failing of that report in its conclusions. Erm a new settlement is going to be difficult to assimilate into any landscape, to locate fourteen hundred dwellings and associated community facilities anywhere in the in the Vale of York is is gonna be very difficult. Unless you locate it either in the middle of a wood or at the bottom of a quarry. Erm I think in the first instance, an assessment needs to be done of all the la of the landscape quality and I would suggest that it ought to be directed away from from areas of high landscape quality, towards areas of a lower landscape quality. Erm the new settlement isn't r demand is there. And I chart, er could indicate that we demand is there. And I chart, er could indicate that we by structure planting. to help it to assimilate. I don't think they question necessarily assimilation of the settlement now, but assimilation in the settlement in the it becomes developed. What's your assessment of sector six in those terms?... Ryedale?
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes. Yeah.
[D Whittaker:] Yeah. I think I think in landscape terms, it's probably one of the best sectors. Erm and certainly there are belts of woodland there which could screen it to a certain extent. Erm but I I would have thought that it would have been necessary to examine that sector against all the others before reaching any conclusion as to whether or not i it could be more successfully assimilated into the landscape of that sector as opposed to anywhere else....
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr you wanted to come back?
[Mr Peter Davies:] Yes just a point of clarification. Peter, North Yorkshire. The report has been referred to twice as the County Council report. That is incorrect, the report has never been considered by a committee of the County Council or indeed by the County Council. not even the between the officers who tried to er to produce it. it at best could be described as a an early attempt to make progress, but there's no commitment on behalf of the County Council or I suspect, by the relevant district councils to er that report. They also I suspect, not having seen it.
[Mr E Barnett:] C just to be accurate on the status of the the the document. I mean it was a report it must have been to the member authorities, was it a progress report or deliberations?
[Mr Peter Davies:] It was a report that was it it was a report
[Mr E Barnett:] It is it is a publicly available document. Is it?
[Mr Peter Davies:] It's never been as far as I'm aware to erm any committee of county or district. I think erm I think that's that's a matter of er er fact. It was pro it was an attempt by an early attempt by the officers of the Greater York technical group to try and make progress. The officers comprising that who couldn't agree on its er on its on its content. So it has no official status whatsoever and has not been a subject of consideration by the County Council.
[Mr E Barnett:] Okay thank you, thanks for the clarification. Er Mr, the Mr, Miss and then Mr.
[Mr Peter Davies:] Thank you chairman. Lindsay, Harrogate Borough Council. Erm one small piece of information I erm forgot to mention erm previously which is the possibilities for derelict and degraded land within er the Harrogate sector. Erm within the six to ten mile band there are just two er fairly small er areas er which I believe are both less than ten acres in extent. At Topwith and Green Hammerton respectively. Er which I don't think would make the focus for a new settlement proposal.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr?
[speaker004:] , I take the view that the A sixty four north eastern sector has higher landscape value that most of the others in fact all of the others. And that therefore it would be all the more difficult in terms of er P P G three to ensure a positive environmental improvement from the construction of a new settlement. And I would also draw attention to a particular consideration namely that between the outer boundary of the greenbelt in that corridor and the area of outstanding natural beauty of the Hills, there is very little distance. Flaxton village falls almost equidistant between the two boundaries.
[Mr Terry Heselton:] Fiona,. I just wanted to set out for you we don't agree with the assessment on landscape impact on the A sixty four south. Erm principally this area is wide open farmland so long views of a new settlement will be provided and it'll be very difficult to try and disguise that in any way. Erm but it it's not just the views of the settlement which I think should be under consideration here. Erm it's also the infrastructure that will be required by such a settlement. Much of the erm sector which is east of the A sixty four is very isolated from existing roads and the only access into that area is over the A sixty four or from the A sixty four. New roads that would need to be provided would therefore have to come from that direction and and it itself will cut a swathe through the open countryside. So no by the relevant district councils indicate that we haven infrastructure that goes with it will have a very big impact on that area.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr
[Mr P Brighton:] Paul, Planning Partnership. Erm first of all, as I grapple with this problem over the weekend, it did seem to me very difficult to make any sensible assessment of integration on a at a strategic level because so clearly it is a site specific matter. It depends on the problems and opportunities in terms of hedgerows, small scale variations in topography and so on. And it occu It seemed to me therefore that really one could only consider this level o at a strategic issue by looking at the quality of the existing landscape and it seems to me, if the proposition is that you should locate a new settlement to the erm North in the Ryedale sector, er of Greater York, then you're effectively turning planning on its head because I think the usual approach is to try and steer development to less attractive areas rather than put them in better quality areas. And I think that's what underpins the advice in Planning Policy Guidance note number three which is seeking to use the new settlement as a mechanism for improving the n the er the landscape. And in that respect I agree with the sentiments that have been er given by Mr. Erm you've also asked for specific erm advice on whether there is any disused or derelict land in the sectors. I am very familiar with one sector and can assure you there is a disused aerodrome which would be eminently suitable as er a new settlement site and that's in the A sixty four south corridor.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr.
[Mr J Cunnane:] Michael. Can I just take the panel back through the er l back to basics on this matter in terms of the Greater in terms of Greater York and the the areas searched, firstly I think the first point of fact, there's no part of that sector as far as I'm aware that's subject to any landscape designations either national or local. The only county-wide survey, the one of importance to you ma'am is contained within the North Yorkshire Conservation Strategy of which I think you've been referred to already. And Ma'am that shows you I think er the chairman has it open in front of you. Erm that this is an are the whole of this area apart from the east side where which is of course greenbelt, is an area which has been defined as a as a landscape which has suffered character character loss through agricultural change or urban intrusion of a major scale. It's either major or large scale, I can't actually read from my key particularly well. But it's erm quite substantial. So we're not dealing here with an area of particularly high landscape quality in a county-wide sense or indeed a national sense. The best which you can put it is that all the whole of the area of search is an area of of moderate quality which is appreciated by the people who live within it. The main distinction I think you will find when you tour round Greater York is is that the distinction is between areas of intensive agriculture where of course you have the w which is to the west and to the south of the city, where you in fact have the highest quality of agricultural land, and the areas to the north where you have the lower quality agricultural land and therefore you have greater retention of cover. In terms of derelict land ma'am, very much a great deal. The fact is that I think in the sense that from the north west. The only criticism which has been made of the c se the A sixty four sector north east of York is that there i significant amount of cover ma'am. And that in fact lends itself to be to a new settlement being assimilated into the landscape completely in accord with the criterion of H two. And ma'am just to deal with one point which was made raised by Mr in his statement, I cannot we we have un undertaken a very detailed landscape analysis. Our landscape has concluded that there could be no no prospect of any damage to form the O A O M D i if there is development in this this sector. We are talking about s several miles ma'am and I can I can't just conceive of i of how that could could occur. And ma'am on a further point which I think is very significant when you're dealing with proposals in the A sixty four south of York, is you have to take into account not only the impact of the new settlement itself, but the impact of associated infrastructure. And of course what Mr does not refer to in any of his submissions n is the need for new settlements in that area to be have to have very long access roads. In fact the proposal which he's promoting needs a three mile new road cutting across the landscape. Which will have a very severe impact indeed and ma'am, that needs to be taken into account. goes to the question of landscape impact. And ma'am, just on a brief note of clarification, the report which has been referred to was a report prepared by the County Planning Officer, endorsed and I think was prepared in his name and was presented t to a working party of Greater York authorities. The Grea it was the Greater York authorities ma'am who who as I understand determined not to proceed with a location within the third alteration, and that was endorsed by the County Council when they first considered the draft plan. I think that's the correct factual position.
[Mr Peter Davies:] The correct factual position is as I said that er the County Planning Committee or the County Council has not considered that document. Erm er it was not acceptable to the officers and the limited number of members that looked was not acceptable to them.
[D Whittaker:] Can I come back to you please Mr? I'm well accustomed to being called sir.
[speaker004:] [LAUGHTER]
[D Whittaker:] Erm on this occasion please remember we have a chairman, not just me here. More importantly, if you were doing the exercise Mr did over the weekend, how would you score the sector? On criterion five?
[Mr J Cunnane:] On crite
[D Whittaker:] ...
[Mr J Cunnane:] I think the A sixty four north has should be given the highest score and I think that's not not a [yawn] view, that's also the view of the County Planning Officer at the time of the report. Erm
[D Whittaker:] I could have guessed that.
[speaker004:] [LAUGHTER]
[D Whittaker:] Have you anything to say yourself?
[Mr J Cunnane:] The A sixty four south ma'am, I I have some sympathy with Mr with Mr 's views that in fact, the A sixty four is an e area where the landscape quality's not high. However I tend to score it much much on a much lower scale because A of the need for the associated infrastructure involved, that will have a very severe impact, and B ma'am the landscape quality, there is the area is of some is of some quality, it is not an area of derelict land as I say. In the in the sense I associated with working Wigan for example. In terms of the the A nineteen also I think scores reasonably highly on this criterion, the A nineteen south... cos again I I would have thought that it does lend itself to assimilation of a new settlement. The A fifty nine north, the A fifty nine the A nineteen north and the B one three six three, I agree with the district councils, it would be very difficult cos of the character of the landscape to assimilate a new settlement within them....
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr?
[Mr P Brighton:] Thank you sir, Paul, Planning Partnership. Can I just express my e concern that erm Mr is using this examination in public as a an opportunity to knock other schemes in the Greater York area. I don't think that was the purpose of the erm the E I P and certainly my evidence has not been er produced in that way and it relates solely to sectors. Thank you.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you yes, I mean our purpose is not here to try and judge competing bids for the new settlement, but to try to come to if we can, objective appraisal of if we are minded to recommend the new settlement, could we in fact come up with a district location. No more than that. Miss.
[Mr Terry Heselton:] Fiona,. I just wanted to clarify the point about derelict land in the A sixty four south corridor, which erm have referred to. Erm there is a disused aer aerodrome in this area, but it is in in itself to a great ex extent assimilated into the farmland around the area. This is very attractive farmland, wide open fields, very intensively farmed, erm it's very difficult to spot the aerodrome from driving round the area at all, erm some of it's been taken up and incorporated into fields. Where it hasn't, the farmers are using generally for storage areas, that sort of thing a and access. I it's not what you would call erm derelict land really.
[Mr E Barnett:] Not as defined with the D O E terms.
[Mr Terry Heselton:] Which are?
[Mr E Barnett:] .
[speaker004:] [LAUGHTER]...
[Mr E Barnett:] Anyone else wish to pursue... their comments on this particular criterion? If not can we move on to six which er in Mr 's... shorthand is [reading] area likely to meet Greater York needs []. Er the County Council's... statement. Er now then [reading] Be in locations which best serve all development needs arising in Greater York. Now are any of the sectors people consider match that or fail to match that criterion? Are some better than others?... If so, which ones?... Or are they all equally great? []...
[Mr J Cunnane:] Sir... Sir I was hoping that somebody else would start. [LAUGHTER] Erm sir I I think this is clearly You've heard a great deal about this
[Mr E Barnett:] Yeah.
[Mr J Cunnane:] I don't think I I need to repeat much of that which was said on Thursday and on Friday. There's there's I think there's general consensus among most r around most of the table that a location south and west of York would would tend to meet the needs of the West Yorkshire conurbation, rather than that of the Y Greater York area. Whereas locations to the north of York, and here we're dealing with here ma'am er dealing sir with the A sixty four north and the B one three six three and the A nineteen north would tend to serve the needs of Greater York. And certainly should be clearly be preferred on that basis. Particularly when of course one looks at w criterion eight little A. Because of course the two are inseparably linked.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr?
[Mr J Cunnane:] Erm Joe, Associates. Er I think Michael has made the point er but could I just draw attention the regional erm the strategic and sub-regional policy point that erm I wished to emphasise er and I would refer to the Greater York study... w e e of sixty one. Er says in in the second sentence of the paragraph that locations most readily accessibly to West Yorkshire conurbation are likely to stimulate competition within the housing market to the potential detriment of local residents and lead to pressure for addis additional land releases. Basically just to put some flesh on the bones of what Michael has said that that is a view of the w of the Greater York study that erm the A sixty four south corridor is more likely er to... er serve the needs of Leeds then it is to serve the needs of of of York. And therefore, the point I would make is that I disagree with the weighting or the the two ticks given to the A sixty four south in in Mr 's assessment. And equally I disagree with the very poor performa poor sorry poor performance given er er in particular to the A nineteen north. Erm I think as Mr said, there does seem to be a fair degree of erm consensus around the table with the exception of that er a location in the Leeds York corridor would be less likely to serve the needs of of erm of York than than location on the north side.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr?
[Mr R Girt:] Dave, Leeds City.... Chair you will not be surprised to hear me coming yet again to s to raise the point about regeneration in West Yorkshire and to say that I agree with Mr and M Mr but I find myself agreeing also with Mr 's written comments in his paragraph three sixteen where he clearly points to the fact that settlement in this south west quadrant would serve West Yorkshire perhaps more so than N than York. Encouraging migration from West Yorkshire, from Leeds in particular, more so than the other sectors. Which is I think is implied by his suggestion that a settlement there would intercept some of the housing demand. In other words, people wishing to settle to to buy a house in this new settlement would competing. York residents would be competing against West Yorkshire residents....
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes yeah. You're putting a slightly different er interpretation on what he said there aren't you. Yeah. Mr.
[Mr Terry Heselton:] Er thank you chairman Terry,
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr.
[Mr Terry Heselton:] Selby district. Er just for the record really it's erm Mr Mr er 's not necessarily alone er in in his views, and and Selby District doesn't necessarily accept the view that erm development in this location would be prejudicial to West Yorkshire. Erm... although we we haven't really really discussed this, I suspect that given the the scale of development proposed in in Selby District, it's it's quite likely on the basis of what I've heard from Mr, that Leeds are going to raise objections to development on on the western side of Selby District generally because that that area is just as close to Leeds. Erm that being the case, if if those objections were were sustained, er you know, going back to what was was said last week, then I think Selby might be in difficulties in in meeting its housing requirement. There are other potential locations within the district that would take a significant amount of development other than a new settlement.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mm.
[D Whittaker:] I find some difficulty in understanding the argument that's coming from Leeds City Council, bearing in mind the emphasis you placed last week. I shall repeat that cos I can see those in the back row couldn't hear.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mm.
[D Whittaker:] I find a little difficulty in understanding the basis of your argument Mr, given the point you made last week about the need for Yo North Yorkshire as a whole to cater for one hundred percent migration, so as to make adequate provision for those coming from Leeds.
[Mr R Girt:] Dave, Leeds City. This er a question that Mr raised last Thursday of Friday and which I thought I'd clarified Leeds position on. We we draw a clear distinction between provision in Craven, Harrogate, Hambledon where constraint was suggested spread over fifteen years on dispersed housing sites. The impact of that on Leeds residents perception of the migration opportunities is quite different quite different from a new settlement on a very accessible corridor which would have to be promoted and would have to be built quickly to be... to present itself as a successful venture. That would be a clear magnet to erm Leeds residents and to those seeking locations for new employment opportunities....
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr, Mr and then Mr.
[speaker004:] Tony Tony,. I would like to see the definition of satisfactory a access extended also to include the
[Mr E Barnett:] Sorry we haven't got there yet Mr. We're still on with six.
[speaker004:] I do apologize.
[Mr E Barnett:] Just hold your fire. Mr.
[speaker004:] , Flaxton. In my opinion, taken as a proportion of travelling time by persons travelling by car from employment in the Leeds conurbation to the York area, the... extra involved in travelling past York on the A sixty four, is quite slight and there's plenty of evidence that numbers of people er travel to the Leeds conurbation from the north eastern part of York by [clears throat] by the A sixty four regularly. Therefore the disadvantage associated with the south western sector from the point of view of attracting commuters from Leeds, is less than it might be thought.
[Mr E Barnett:] I think it's a point that was also raised by Mr in our discussions on Friday, where he said of course, with the advent of the better orbital road around York he f he he felt that it probably was not such a material factor. But I mean it's people's perceptions isn't it about travelling it's quite material. Mr?
[Mr R Girt:] Dave, Leeds City. Y yes chair it's all about relative accessibility and simply improving roads more distant from Leeds will make them relatively more accessible but not more accessible than locations closer to Leeds. There are people who commute to Leeds from very distant positions, but they are penny numbers. And the greater the distance, the greater the the travel time, the fewer people make that journey. And including in that travel time, must be the congestion which they will face as they approach Leeds which which already is er a difficult problem.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yeah. Mr?
[Mr P Brighton:] Paul,Paul, Partnership. Er Mr has referred to his preference for the release of lots of small sites on the basis that erm they will be er Leeds residents would be less aware of them than if all the sites are collected together in the form of a new settlement. I mean I think that is er nonsense quite honestly, I think any housing or industrial developer, if he has a site will promote it in erm a market and I don't think really there is a distinction bet to be drawn between either of those planning strategies on that point. Could I also just erm perhaps point out that half of the assessed development land needs for the Greater York area, certainly in respect of residential development, includes a an element for in migration and therefore it is it would not be altogether surprising if wherever the new settlement is located around York, some Leeds residents er chose to live there.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yeah. Mr.
[Mr J Cunnane:] Michael. I would just take a It seems to me that quite clearly that a new settlement in the A sixty four corridor south, would stimulate migration at levels which would not otherwise have taken place and that is the key objection to it. If there will continue to be migration from from Leeds and that is obviously incorporated in the population projections produced by the County Council. The effect of a new settlement south east of York would be to increase those levels so that people with from Greater York, would find would not be able to find accommodation within the new settlement and therefore the total housing requirement of Greater York would be increased and housing needs would not be met.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr.
[Roy Donson:] Roy Roy, House Builder's Federation. I have great difficulty coming to terms with all that was being said under H one about migration and the relationship to Leeds and the idea that it matters enormously in the realm exactly where this new settlement, which I hope does go ahead, actually goes. It seems to me that all that we would be doing would be substituting one area for another in effect in terms of where that development is attracted from. Er and er quite clearly is er Leeds migrants in migrants were were attracted er to to somewhere in in in the south er there would be less main migrants since we're working to a ceiling, er would be attracted elsewhere. And the reverse is also true, that if more in migrants were attracted to the north east of York then there would be people would not attracted elsewhere. Because we are working to a ceiling. Erm it would seem to me therefore that if we're working in terms of ticks and crosses, that area likely to meet Gre Greater York needs, you ought to have a tick against all of them.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you, anybody else want to raise anything on criterion six, or can we move to seven? Which I would like to aim to complete by lunchtime so we can resume afresh on the others at five thirty. Erm seven comes headed satisfactory access, but can I remind you of the County Council's er criterion which w which is [reading] Have good access or be able to provide good access, to the primary road network, but avoid unacceptable traffic consequences on any single part of the network. An ability to link into the rail network to provide for local commuter services into York would i would be an advantage. [] and coupled with that, is the possibility of maximizing or enabling the provision of improved public transport facilities. So can you er look at it in that light and you will see of course that and I can understand why Mr has done it in this way, he has actually broken down er his the approach to this to to looking at this criterion, under the three heads, road, rail and bus. Because in some sectors the rail network actually does not come into the equation. Or may not come into the equation. Any comments?... On the way in which he has assessed n not the points scoring but the the assess er er assessed the various sectors although he has erm given a extra scoring to two sectors, the A sixty four south and also the Harrogate sector. This is in the rail sense. And he's underscored Selby east and also Hambledon. Mr.
[Mr R Girt:] Chris from Wood Frampton. In assessing the impact that rail travel's going to have in terms of travel patterns form the new settlement, I think that one important consideration that the panel should have regard to is the location of York's s station relative to the City Centre. I'm s sure sir, you're aware it's outside the City walls and if you're commu commu If rail travel is possible from a new settlement to the Town Centre, the actual nu proportion of people using the rail, I would submit it would be very small, because say if you're a shop worker in er Marks and Spencers, then you've got a considerable walk from York City Station for example. Also, the main employment areas that both erm Michael and myself have referred to to the north and north east of York have no rail link. So clearly in that light I would say that rail and bus need to be bracketed together so a an ability to erm serve the new settlement by public transport becomes the key consideration....
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr.
[Mr J Cunnane:] Er Joe, J C Associates. Erm on on the point about road access, I'd simply point out that the it it is acknowledged by the Department of Transport, and in fact there's a study under way I believe to to look at this, that the A sixty four in the York, Selby area er in the Leeds York corridor, is already subject to congestion and peak hour er delays. Erm the information that I have available to me would suggest therefore that the A nineteen erm when it's dualled would be a superior and therefore to get a better score erm on on that criterion.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr? Thank you chair. Erm I'd like to comment particularly on the impact of that the different sectors have within the City of York, cos that's clearly our main concern. Erm the City Council does act as agent for the highway authority within the City of York and actually maintains a a tra transportation model er in conjunction with the County Council with the County Surveyor. Clearly you understand from my comments last week, we consider any of the any of the options be to be bad in terms of their traffic impact on the City. But we did did take the opportunity over the weekend to actually run our traffic model er at a very crude level, I have to estimate. Er emphasis rather. To give an indication as it were which in terms of within the City of York, which would be the least worse of the options. Erm if I could sir, refer you to your ordnance survey plan which shows the the highway network as it enters the City. Yeah, carry on Mr. I think it's important for you to to recognize, you'll see form that plan that all the major radials end up on the York inner ring road. And whilst you've heard comment from Mr last week about the County Surveyor's view that the capacity of the radials really outside the City and also as they enter the City, the key impact within the City of York is on the inner ring road, because all the traffic tends to end up there. Having examined the various sectors er we've come to the view that there are three sectors which are least worst in that effect, erm which is the north east sector, south east and the south west. In terms of the impact they have on the traffic system in the city. The difference between them is I have to admit at this level, relatively marginal in terms of er which is the worst and which is the best between the three. But our conclusion is that in fact the south east sector is the er least harmful of the three, but the south west sector is the next least harmful and that in fact, somewhat surprisingly I must admit, that the north east sector is actually the worst of those three. That is because it feeds on to the most congested part of the York inner ring road which is the er Gillygate erm Lord Mayor's Walk section. Which has the most severe congestion problems. The reason why we differentiate between the south east and south west is also important because the southern of the bridges, the Skeldergate Bridge in York is by far the most heavily congested on the inner ring road and in particularly in going in the west to east direction, so the south west sector scores worse in that respect because it feeds traffic on to the most congested bridge of the inner ring road. So that's our assessment in terms of the the highway impact. Can I just comment on the on the other two criteria while I'm speaking sir to help you? Erm I think it's important to recognize in rail terms that erm the east coast main line, erm particularly obviously er the section heading north, British Rail would not allow er a new station opening on the east coast main line, so you have to confine yourselves to looking at those which have a a regional railway route. Erm and I would just comment on Mr 's er criteria assessment that I fail to see any difference really between any of the three re er regional routes in terms of the potential of opening a station on any of them. I can't see how you can score against the north east sector on that respect, er because there is there is no station currently serving the south west sector that I'm aware of, so clearly in both cases you need to provide a new station. Yeah. And finally just in terms of er public transport, I think it's fair to say that there there's probably little in it between them all because they're all very poorly served by public transport. At the present time. Yeah. Just just by way of informa information, the regional routes rail network, you're talking about the Harrogate line, the one to Scarborough and? And the Leeds line that Leeds line. that passes down to the south west sir, yes. Thank you.... Mr
[speaker004:] Tony, Connell. Er with regard to the means of satisfactory access, I think it's also necessary to take into account er the need to reduce car dependency. Er this is a strategic issue and it can lead to pos a positive environmental improvement. This has been implied er in Mr 's analysis of road, rail and bus and clearly there is to be integration between all three systems but particularly er with regard to the bus er method of tran public transport as this is most likely to be accessible. The integration between road and bus certainly can be met by park and ride interchanges. And consequently I think the er probably locations of park and ride facilities around the periphery of York, is a factor that should be taken into account when selecting a most appropriate transport corridor. There is at the present time a park and ride facility on the south western side of York er on the er Tadcaster Road and er another one is being proposed on the eastern side at Grimston Bar adjacent to the A sixty f [clears throat] Excuse me, A sixty four trunk road.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yeah. So you you would say that was a material factor in influencing possibly er which sector you would look at?
[speaker004:] Sorry sir?
[Mr E Barnett:] I said, you you would say that was a material influencing factor, the provis the likely provision of a park and ride scheme?
[speaker004:] Indeed.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yeah. Thank you. Miss. And then Mr....
[Mr Terry Heselton:] Fiona,. I really wanted to erm stress under this section the erm particular isolation again of that area in the south south west sector of York erm f from the point of view of road access in particular. This area is very isolated from existing roads, the A sixty four is the only link in. Erm re any any proposal in that sector would require quite a long lead in to the A sixty four and that obviously would be contrary to P P G twelve which requite that development should be er minimize the car journeys and the requirement for car journeys. Erm... Oh sorry. [LAUGHTER].... So really what I'm saying is that it h would have an undue impact on highway network and in particular on that particular erm strand of it. The County's policy actually says that it should erm avoid unacceptable traffic consequences on any single part of the network. Well it's obvious that any er settlement in that area would have an impact on the A sixty four as that's the only access into that area.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr?
[Mr J Cunnane:] Michael. I I going to weight of of criteria first of all, I think this very great weight should be applied to this criterion because obviously if you cannot serve the new settlement satisfactorily then it shouldn't be developed in that location. In terms of taking we we have a put in a detailed traffic impact study which you'll have seen in with our report. If I can just summarize what it found. In terms of the A nineteen south, that is already operating at capacity. This of course is a trunk road. There are no plans whatsoever for its improvement, it couldn't be improved satisfactorily to se just for the new settlement. And I don't think there is any realistic way in which it could cope with the flows of a fourteen hundred dwelling new settlement. And that is also the view of our planning consulta er of our highway consultant. In terms of the A sixty four south, although it is a a dual carriageway, again it is operating at capacity in in in the stretch which you would need to serve the new settlement. And it al and proje on any projected traffic flows, you'll be operating well over capacity by the time in which the new settlement is developed. Again, it is difficult to see how that could satisfactorily cope with the demands of the new settlement as well, given its key role as a regional route. In terms of the A fifty nine and A nineteen north, again they're operating over capacity. Er at er presently operating at capacity, and would be well over capacity if if the new settlement was tagged on and again there are there is no scope or plans for their improvement. And similarly the B one three six three, the same comments apply. That leaves the only main radial which is the A sixty four north. Now... there there is the scheme by the Department of Transport to upgrade it to dual it u as far to to Malton and then beyond subsequently. Ma'am, sir I should say, erm Mr makes certain comments about there are doubts about whether this scheme will go forward, we have been in contact with Department of Transport, again to try and give you the correct factual position. The the words which we have been given by the product engineer, is that the Department of Transport, and that was his words, committed to this scheme. The public consultation exercise was undertake last year to gauge public reaction. The s the the details, and stressed the details of the scheme, are currently being reexamined in the light of these comments and the surveys which are now complete. And they are now working to this timetable for the road. There will be a public the orders will be published next year in Autumn, ninety four, a public enquiry mid ninety five, decision ea in early ninety six, a start in ninety seven and completion in nineteen ninety nine. Ma'am when sir when this when this road when these when it is dualled, it will have compl adequate capacity to serve the new settlement and will be the only radial route around Greater York which could do so satisfactorily. We have I have got I we have produced for you today, some detailed plans showing you what the capacities are of the routes, what the present flows are and what the effects of the new settlement will be upon those capacities. If we could put those in to you subsequently. They are currently in the course of preparation. Cos I think this is a matter you need the factual evidence.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you.
[Mr J Cunnane:] Now can I just can I just deal again with the question of public transport? I I give very great weight to the need for the new settlement to be on a public transport corridor. The A sixty four north is such a public transport corridor, there is already a very regular bus service along that route. Th it also has the potential to have new stations opened up along that route, both to serve existing communities and there are plans within the Southern Ryedale Local Plan already for new stations to be opened up. We have had discussions with British Rail who confirm that in principle they have no objections to such new stations. And this is a further factor in favour of the A sixty four north. The t turning to the other sectors, it's quite correct there is capacity there is there is scope for example along the A fifty nine corridor, for new stations. But there is no scope along the A sixty four south. It is I think I must emphasise, Mr refers in his evidence to the fact that there there is an existing station along this radial route. What he omits to say is that new station is south of the River Wharfe and there are no bridges over which anyone can get to that new station from the area f search. And frankly it might as well be on the moon in terms of its accessibility to the area of search. And th and can I restate the view of British Rail, there is little or no prospect of a new station being opened up on the east coast main route main line, because of the four track configuration, which I'm sure you'll have seen on your when you've come up to York by tr by train. So I think the inescapable logic of of this and I think this was accepted by and it's accepted by the County Surveyor certainly if not by the County Planning Officer, is that the new settlement for access reasons, should be on the A sixty four north east corridor.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you for that. Mr and then Mr. I think I'll make Mr positively the last one before lunch.
[Mr P Brighton:] Erm Michael, Hambledon District Council. Thank you chairman, there are two points I would wish to make. The first relates to a point r raised by Mr where he er asserted that the A nineteen er was to be dualled. This is not the case, there are no plans to dual the A nineteen north of York. There are proposals for a number of bypasses which are relatively limited, erm throughout the majority of its length it will remain single carriageway. The second point relates to the er issue of public transport. Erm and in particular, potential for rail access and I would like to endorse what Mr has said, and what Mr has said. Erm we believe that this is something that the panel should pay particular regard to, bearing in mind the government's advice to reduce the need for for travel. Erm and we would point out that er since the nineteen sixties there have been something like two hundred new stations opened erm on the rail network, the vast majority of these have been on Regional Railways. There are very few on Intercity routes. Those that have been opened on Intercity routes, are at major rail heads where they can perform as major transport interchanges, such as Bristol. There have been no stations opened up at settlements of this size.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr?
[D Whittaker:] Ian, Ryedale District. Yes really it's just supporting or confirming what Mr said, which we did as part of the Southern Ryedale Local Plan, we contacted British Rail, and they were not averse to the reopening of stations on the York Scarborough line, providing they were funded by private investment. Erm on that I also point out that in terms of commuting, the next stop after York is Leeds, so a settlement on the A sixty four corridor is ideally placed with regards to rail transport, to the centre of Leeds....
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr.
[Mr Peter Davies:] Again, perhaps a point of clarification to be to be helpful. As far as the County Highways Authority's concerned, I think they've made it quite clear that as a matter of principle, when they considered the new settlement, the new settlement proposal was then around nineteen hundred dwellings, larger than what is being proposed at the moment. That as a matter of principle, there would be no objection in principle to a new settlement in any of the sectors that we're discussing today. But there would of course be a greater or lesser requirement for additional roadworks as a result of that proposal, which would need to be the subject of negotiation. But certainly there was no objection in principle from the County Council's Highway Authority and acting as agents for the Department of Transport, as trunk road agent, as a matter of principle, to any of the sectors that we've been discussing today.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you. Mr is it a very quick one?
[Mr P Brighton:] It is sir, yes, very very swift hopefully. Paul, Partnership. The work which our consulting engineers have done in conjunction with engineers from York City Council, show in very broad terms, that the existing radial routes within the Greater York area, were all in the period around about nineteen ninety one, all operating at more or less, design capacity. There is some movement either way, but in broad terms and it seems to me what proponents of other sectors are doing basically, is suggesting that their particular segment is better because of erm possible improvements which may or may not take in the future. And it is it seems to me quite within the realms of possibility that erm highway erm criteria will change and the need for upgrading of the roads would be reviewed and perhaps a different system erm of er judging them er would produce a different set of or a different improvement regime.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you I I have no other points Unless a has anybody got wants to pursue the communications issue after when when we reconvene at five thirty, otherwise I'm quite happy. I must say that the way the discussion has gone this morning, is n I would say, slightly disappointing because there is some attempt to make a positive contribution, but at the moment it's not necessarily pointing us quite in the direction which we would hope to go. So can I ask those of you you know to think carefully about what you want to contribute a particularly those of you who who have asked the panel to come forward with a recommendation on a location for a new settlement. That's if we're minded to approve or recommend for approval, the new settlement. Can I ask you to think carefully about those dire those issues factors which you think we ought to take into account if we want to be better informed in order to come forward with that sort of a recommendation. So I'll see you again at five thirty, can I say again I'd like to conclude H two tonight, I'm sure you all would as well. Erm... let's yes alright we'll see you at five thirty, let's hope we can conclude by about seven thirty. Thank you. [tape change]