[Eric Barnett:] Policy H two and the matters which are outstanding from our discussion yesterday are those which relate to the criteria and also the question of whether the policy should include specific guidance on the location of the new settlement. However before we embark on that, there are two outstanding matters which were raised yesterday a and I'd just like to know how far erm progress has been made in dealing with those and one was the erm definition as far as it can be made of what is meant by the Greater York area. And also the compilation of the commitments etcetera by the Greater York er ag again related to the Greater York area.
[Mr P Davies:] Peter, North Yorkshire, on the former, Greater York, I think er I did undertake to consult with the county surveyor on the relationship er journey to work er and commuting around Greater York and that work is is in hand this morning. I doubt whether it will appear erm by by one o'clock. But er it will be in, it is being pursued.
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you very much.
[Mr P Davies:] On the second erm erm issue the commitments in Greater York, erm Mr has has made good progress erm on this erm and he's been had discussions this morning with er district colleagues and hopefully we we are nearly there on that one.
[Eric Barnett:] Will that be ready by the end of the morning or are we looking at Tuesday morning for that?
[Mr P Davies:] Hopefully by the end of the morning, we'll do our best for the end of the morning. Now we we we want to embark on a discussion of er matters C and D under issues. But before we do that, er and you're having given to you a piece of paper, headed possible scenarios for panel reporting on the new settlement. Erm a very minor point, when you get it, those who have got it already, would you just draw a line from the top line which says discussed criteria, down to the box which says evaluate sectors around York etcetera. Now by way of introduction to this, we had some deep thinking last night after we'd concluded our discussion, and I have to preface what I'm going to say, certainly for Mr 's benefit that it's the if question, the if question. Erm as we see it, there are en two possible courses on the new settlement that in fact you end up if you look at the right hand side of that sheet of paper, with four possible answers. But if I start with A. If if it is considered that a new settlement is required to meet the housing provision in Greater York, then the first question that has to be asked is, is the criteria approach alone acceptable. If the answer to that is yes, then we proceed to discuss the criteria and the panel could proceed to report accordingly on those. If the answer is no, and here this is linked to the question of should the policy include specific guidance for the location of the settlement, and by specific guidance, it implies, should it be allocated to a particular district, then in order to do that, the panel feel that we would have to be in a position of having sufficient information to make an objective and logical decision on that. And that may well entail during the discussion on D an evaluation around York to decide which maybe the appropriate sectors of of app which is the appropriate host authority. If we find we have enough information, to proceed it's all ifs I know. But if we find we have enough information to proceed to make a positive recommendation, on the new settlement and the host district for that, then we would report accordingly. If we find or feel that we haven't got sufficient information to make a proper recommendation as seems likely than again we will report accordingly but there are implications obviously on that. And then finally, the other if is, if we find that the new settlement is not required then we report accordingly.... Does anybody wish to respond to that?
[D Whittaker:] Have we missed any possible scenarios out I wonder.
[speaker004:] ...
[Eric Barnett:] Mr.
[Roy Donson:] Erm Roy, House Builders Federation. I I I just wonder what the opposition would think if you decided that the criteria approach alone was not acceptable and you equally decided you hadn't enough information to specify a location, where would that leave you? Or where would it leave anybody else.
[Eric Barnett:] The ob the obvious answer to that would be we'd not be in a position to make the proper recommendation in favour of I I suspect. And that would be then a matter for the county to determine how they would proceed from that point.
[D Whittaker:] We would of course fully report all of our reasoning at both the yes and no stages of this decision tree. If we had found good reason to say no, to the first question, there are implications for how we say no to the second question....
[Eric Barnett:] Peter
[Mr P Davies:] Peter, North Yorkshire. Er I'm still trying to digest the er implications of er these various er flows but just to comment perhaps at this stage on the possibility or otherwise of er defining a er a district location. Erm I would have thought and it's a personal immediate reaction at this stage, it would be difficult for you to come to a conclusion on the appropriate district location. Erm you haven't had the the figures of the local authorities erm on that or for that matter the public at large which I think is important. Erm which we think would be very important as part of the debate. And perhaps secondly erm there is not a body of information which has been submitted to er this examination public which advises you in detail on the various issues that we think need to be addressed leading to the erm proposal occasions and I would have thought it would have been difficult for the panel to come to a a conclusion but I may be wrong on that. Thank you.
[Eric Barnett:] I was hoping that we could actually [clears throat] tease out as part of the discussion, whether there is erm a positive way forward if if we if you are minded if we are minded to recommend the new settlement, then I would hope we would tease out during the course of this discussion erm the preferred or a preferred host authority for this new settlement.
[Mr P Davies:] Peter, North Yorkshire. Well I would be in some difficulty there sir because erm I have clearly this is a very important and sensitive er issue, one which involves erm one which would involve erm consideration by my members of the various issues, erm I have no authority to express a detailed view on a ma on a matter of principle, or indeed a general view as to wh as to which is the er the best location. Because I don't know. Because I don't know what is the er what is the best location.
[Roy Donson:] We are of course conscious that of the position held by the County Council and by the district councils. Indeed we heard more than once I think yesterday, the district councils, they have no. However, I'm sure everyone around the table will be conscious that one of the things the panel has a duty to do is to consider what is in the light of national guidance. And national guidance does contain some fairly specific indicators of what is expected to be structure plans. The other point on that is that the draft matters for the E I P including matter two D have been known to everyone for some considerable time. The D O E objection has been known to everyone for some considerable time and their statement is quite explicit in what it says in relation to the matter of one D. There have also been several representations from those sitting on my left hand side, about the possible answers to question one D in the affirmative. All that evidence is before the panel, we have a duty to report upon it. It may be fortuitous that if we spend this morning discussing criteria, there'll then be a gap of one and a half working days for those who don't have to travel far to consider possible answers to the second stream of the dialogue. In other words, a no to the first question.
[Eric Barnett:] I think
[D Whittaker:] We have not made. But as with every planning inquiry, hearing or whatever, we need not to avoid closing the discussion before we have all the information we need to reach a decision whichever way we decide to reach it.
[Eric Barnett:] I think just to amplify that point, if you look at the question which is set down under two two D. It's perfectly clear, should the policy include specific guidance on the location of the new settlement. If the answer to that is yes, then how do we go about providing that advice. Mr?
[R Thomas:] Richard of. Erm I must say I share Peter 's view here that the er location of the new settlement, whether in general terms or by district, has not been through the public consultation process. And I don't see how the structure plan er i the way it's been progressed so far, can determine any one of those general locational criteria. All the while there hasn't been a public consultation input. And I it's a difficult question and one I'm not so sure has an answer er but I don't feel that one can be in anyway specific about, the location of the new settlement certainly by district, cos the exercise hasn't been done.
[D Whittaker:] It would of course be necessary if the County Council well first of all, our report will as you know be to the County Council. It would be for them to decide what to do with our report. And of course it is open to them to take a contrary view to any conclusion reached on any matter by the panel. However if as a consequence, of a panel recommendation or of their decision on a panel recommendation, the County Council decide to modify the deposited structure plan, there would of course at that stage have to be a public planning enquiry. It may I I appreciate Mr, that that is a long way away or could be a long way away from the sort of public consultation which one. It would take place in a different context, nevertheless there would be that opportunity and no doubt the adequacy of a public consultation exercise at the proposed modification stage would be a matter for the County Council themselves to decide.
[R Thomas:] Y er Richard of. I think that is indeed correct. I was a little surprised to hear yesterday the views of Mr about the need for this plan to identify the location or the general location of the new settlement. Er that is not a consistent theme within the D O E strategy. One only has to look at the Shropshire structure plan in which I was involved last year, and the Department of the Environment in that case had allowed the facility for new settlement without locational criteria. So it it would not be inconsistent er for a similar situation to apply here. That would probably take you to your er first scenario, if there's to be a new settlement, that the criteria approach alone is acceptable. That is certainly the approach the department took in Shropshire. And I found it a little strange they were suggesting that an alternative approach may be suitable here, particularly when th the evidence hasn't been put forw or gone through the public consultation process.
[Eric Barnett:] Do you wish to comment on that Mr?
[Mr Wincup:] Thank you. D O E. Yes sir, er ever since P P G three was revised at the beginning of last year, I believe that the department has been moving steadily in the direction that indicated but certainly my brief here is quite specific. The department expects a general location for the new settlement to be included in the approved plan. What I said to you yesterday, I hinted that there were difficulties we don't know how they are to be resolved.. We believe that for a structure plan to go forward now in the present state of policy guidance, bearing in mind that's on the basis of P P G twelve and with P P G thirteen lying in the wings. We believe that for any structure plan to conform with a str with a new settlement proposal without specifying the general location, would be. We've tried to persuade the planning authorities in Greater York area, for a considerable period of time to try to bring about a situation where to this E I P with specific proposals, but for good sound local reasons, that has not been possible. we concede on the basis of the exercises that have been discussed so far, I think you will find it very difficult to make a firm recommendation in favour of a specific location., albeit on a district basis. I think you'll find it very difficult to do. And maybe at the end of the day, the County Council will have to come to a conclusion, after you've made your general recommendations, with or without a location maybe th they will decide that having gone through a consultation exercise, they're only course is to modify the proposals which would then have to be the subject of another E I P. Now I hope that doesn't r ring alarm bells. Certainly that would be o o one scenario which I think the county will have to contemplate.
[Eric Barnett:] Mr?
[Mr P Davies:] Peter, er North Yorkshire. Can I just pick up a a couple of points please. First of all in response to to Miss. I I accept that er the government guidance as Miss has suggested and reinforced by Mr does suggest a policy is that there should be that er increased level er of detail erm in the structure plan. I think the the position of the County Council is twofold. First of all, we feel that a step by step approach whereby we move from options to preferred option to a formal debate e on the principle erm of erm of of the strategy. Er that's basically I think a an approach which the County Counci er which the public at large has er has found acceptable. Er we would find it difficult to justify public concern about a specific location er in advance of a decision erm the principle so we would prefer er a step by step approach er which reflects the special circumstances er of Greater York, and I think Greater York is a special circumstance if only because of the number of authorities erm er thus far involved. Secondly I think we would be looking to pursue erm erm progress towards a preferred general location as a matter er of priority. And in fact if you look at the the comments i i the blue book, erm on page thirty seven of the D O E, they have suggested as Mr has just confirmed, that we really ought to have made progress on that before there is an approved any move towards approving the alteration. That is what we intend to do and we intend to do it on the basis of the criteria erm that we have set out. Now I in terms of the fine letter of P P G twelve erm erm er that is not entirely consistent, but looking at the special circumstances of Greater York, erm erm and the long time you've spent on this, trying to reassure the public that we will do this properly, we think it's the best way to proceed.
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you. Er Mr
[M Courcier:] Michael. I and others' main objections both the draft plan and the deposit plan, is there should be a s a general location in H in H two. This is not a new matter, this is a matter on which the County Council could have directed their mind to for several years. I like I'm sure others, once the issues were published for the E I P, took advice from the Home Secretary and were simply advised that the location that that we should give evidence on locational matters to the E I P and that is what we have done. And we have given you detailed evidence. That was available to the County Council to do so. The County Council themselves have in fact produced a paper er which I have produced in my in my appendices which specifically identifies a preferred location for the new settlement. Admittedly that was not accepted by the Greater York authorities working party, but it is there for you, it is a base of technical information for you to use in your decision. In terms of what would happen if this if you felt unable well if there was not a general location specified in the structure plan, then there are two two two ways forward. One that that the decision will be taken by the Greater York au authorities outside the development plan system. That would clearly be completely contrary to the plan led approach which is urged by government in these matters. It would inherently end up a large enquiry some somewhere along the line, which would frustrate the whole purpose of of the planning system. Cos it it would mean the decision would be taken by the Secretary of State and not by the local authorities. Alternatively, the step by step approach urged by Mr, appears to be totally illogical. Cos the if there is to be a proposal modification, that must inevitably be the subject of another examination in public. So we are basically wasting another twelve to eighteen months, sitting around waiting for a decision on the the new settlement. It'll mean a third hiatus making decisions on where development should go in Greater York. Thank you.
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you. I I take your point that yes you have submitted er a a proposal as have other parties er to the discussion. From our point of view we're not in the position and it would be totally wrong of us actually to try in public to to deal with those or to come to a specific conclusion about any particular proposal. I mean that has to be dealt with through the development control processes. Erm but nevertheless, that And local planning yes. Thanks for reminding me. Er nevertheless, under P P G guidance, erm advice, the new settlement is a strategic issue and therefore it's right and proper to think about it and look at look at it and try to determine whether it is possible to give guidance on a district location through this through through through this debate.
[M Courcier:] Michael Michael. I I fully accept e I I hope my evidence in fact wasn't directed at our proposal but in terms of the erm of the general guidance given by the Department of the Environment that there should be a general location specified by district and by locational features such as etcetera. We feel we've given you enough evidence sir that you can come to a reasoned decision. We we think and I think that that the inexorable logic is towards the North East Ryedale districts of North east of York. So I'm I'm sure we'll go through that in detail later on today. But I feel you have enough evidence in front of you to come to that conclusion.
[Mr P Davies:] Chairman, just a very brief point if I may. Peter, North Yorkshire. Mr made reference to the County Council considering a preferment. The County Council has never at any time considered a paper or come to a conclusion erm on the preferred general location for the new settlement. I wish to underline that fully.
[Eric Barnett:] Mr.
[Mr Brighton:] Paul, planning. I wonder if we could just consider the question of what is meant by the term general location. Erm are we agreed er wi with Mr I address this question really to Mr that this really means identification of a district within which the new settlement should be located. Or is the Department of the En Environment looking for something a more specific area than a district?...
[Eric Barnett:] Mr.
[Mr Wincup:] , D O E. Yes sir, the answer to that is that yes we are looking for something more specific. Not site specific but sufficient locational detail to make it that there're not rival schemes. Erm we've heard from Selby that they could they could provide possible sites for more than one scheme. I believe it's the role of the structure plan to specify the general location in such a way that unless those schemes were very close together, in terms of a site specific nature, that wouldn't be left to the local plan process.
[Eric Barnett:] Yes.
[D Whittaker:] We did think about this point last night. We tended towards a view that when... there is a possibility that one part of a district might meet the criteria, but another part of the same district would either be contrary to or prejudice the objectives of the criteria, we might need to specify which part of the district we meant. Perhaps by reference to rivers. quick look at the map, the River Ouse conveniently chops Selby district in roughly half, and that there might well be considerations which for the sake of was not okay. Equally there might be considerations the other half was okay. And that was the sort of level of detail to which we thought we might need to go in those districts where it is demonstrated to us, of the district do need to be considered differently. I that is something which we hope will emerge when we talk about the relevant criteria. Obviously as the chairman has emphasised, we don't know which of these course we're going down, we therefor need during the course of the examination, to go down all. And it seems to us I mean we've talked about the different principles, the ne sensible next step is to talk about the criteria. Can I just confirm with you Mr, that what I've described in terms of geographical location, is getting somewhere near to meeting his objective.
[Eric Barnett:] Mr Sorry
[Mr Wincup:] Mr D O E. Fine as far as it went we would expect during this er proposal the nature of the new settlement to be specific particularly in relation to the transport of the structure. And we'll be looking for some general indication as to a location in a particular transport corridor. Clearly you're unlikely to be recommending somewhere that is not transport in the structure but you'll believe it's important to specify which one.
[Eric Barnett:] If we get to that point. Mr
[Mr Brooke:] Yes sir, very briefly er first of all can I endorse Michael 's first set of comments, I agree with what he said entirely, I think it is incumbent upon the E I P and on the stage that the county have reached with your such good advice in your report, to come to bring this situation together towards the strategic decision. I would endorse what Ken has said, I certainly am of the view there are overriding reasons which I'll come to in a moment for putting forward a general location, I had seen that as a central location which may or may not span more than one district. The criteria which we'll come on to debate, there is one criteria in there which I say overrides or is overriding in weight, and that is number eleven, to be consistent with regional and sub-regional policies. There are very significant sub-regional policies cross border migration which have existed for many many years. Those policies in my view, and I put it this strongly, rule out certain sectors for consideration.
[Eric Barnett:] Mr
[speaker004:] Er yeah thank you sir. Terry, Selby District. Erm can I throw another spanner in the works er sir. Cos what we have heard so far this morning is certainly placing me in all of the local authority. Er as you've already heard, the Greater York authority have cooperated for a number of years in bringing forward new settlement proposals but erm I have to say that I I do agree it would be helpful if the panel were able to make a strategic recommendation in favour of one particular local authority. My difficulty is as as you've already heard I've got no mandate to speak about particular locations or even sectors within Selby District although clearly I do have a mandate as I already have said to come along and say that we feel Selby District is an appropriate location. Erm I had rather thought that that you had been given erm sufficient information already to perhaps make a straightforward simple strategic choice between between districts. Erm if if I can elaborate on on that a a little further. Erm
[Eric Barnett:] Right okay. Sorry Mr, can can we can we leave that for later on when we talk about.
[speaker004:] Okay what we'll just do just just a brief. It seems to me that there there are two ways forward that are that are being pursued in in in other areas. One one approach that we've already heard is is in policy. Erm which again wouldn't trouble Selby district, because we're we're committed to a new settlement. The alternative approach is the one that Mr in terms of specifying particular strategic locations. the reasons I said I I I I could go along with that approach as well.
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you. Mr.
[Roy Donson:] Thank you, Roy, House Builders' Federation. Mr raised the possibility of a second E I P. I would regard that as the nightmare scenario. We have erm there have been certain decisions made over time which has got us to this position and whether erm you agree or anyone agrees or not the the the right next step is to specify a location, nevertheless it's embodied in what's gone on so far, a series of steps towards making the decision. In my view, a second E I P would be a backward step. We've already expressed concern in other arenas about the way in which the greenbelt planning this structure. We found certain difficulty with the with the with the logic of that. But nevertheless we've tackled that and come to deal with it. But in a situation where we were left with the second E I P and we had districts preparing district wide plans and as Mr in his submission has said, he intends to remove the present article fourteen, direction, we are in real chaos. I would urge the panel to make a decision which enables us to go down a road of logical decision making to get the issue resolved one way or the other. If not we'll be in limbo land for a long time. It suits neither the development industry, nor would I suggest it suits the public to be left in limbo land for a considerable time.
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you that's very helpful Mr. Mr Ned, Leeds City Council. As the panel knows, chair Leeds itself is in the throes of producing its own strategic plan. The more certainty they can have from this enquiry, the better for us in making our own plans. So we would certainly vote in favour of a specified area the terms that Mr 's given. An the sooner, the better.... Having given you food for thought, I'd like to move on to a discussion of the criteria and can I say right now that I think it would be right and proper to limit our discussion this morning to the criteria. What I would like to do is to come back on Monday sorry Tuesday, Tuesday, Tuesday. To look at possible locations and I would hope and expect to have a positive contribution from the district council representatives on that, and the county. And finally can I reemphasise that we have not come to any conclusion as to which road we shall go down on this one. But i I did feel it was airing those possible scenarios to get a reaction and I think the forty minutes we've had discussing that have been extremely valuable as far as we're concerned. Now can we move to a discussion on the criteria and I'll ask Mr to open on that.... [tape change]
[Mr P Davies:] Thank you chairman I will be brief, Peter Davies North Yorkshire. Er I will be brief, I really want to cover two things er in my introduction. First of all the principle erm of the criteria and secondly the detail erm of the the content er of the criteria. As far as the principle is concerned I just need to say two things. Er first of all er P P G three and the question asked by the D O E as well that it's sufficient justification to go further than the guidance det out in paragraph thirty three er of P P G I think it is paragraph thirty three of P P G
[Eric Barnett:] Yes.
[Mr P Davies:] er three. I think there was a feeling yesterday, certainly it's it's our view that what that paragraph in P P G three does is to set the basic ground rules. The basic ground rules that determine whether a new settlement concept does as I would put it get into the starting gate. I think there's a need or the County Council considered there's a need for certainly in the Greater York context, for further guidance to be given to fairly erm assess where the new settlement location er should be. We think it would be a sad day if local plans and structure plans were purely a restatement er of P P G three. The purpose of the planning system I think is to develop government guidance er and therefore we think there's a need for something further than P P G three. Secondly, er we think there's a need for a consistent overview of York, a consistent view of the issues and the matters that need to be assessed erm right across Greater York. We've already heard that Greater York os a very complex area with many interrelationships. I think there's a need to assess those relationships and those factors evenly and fairly across Greater York and if nothing else I think we owe that to the public er of Greater York. And indeed we did give them an an undertaking er that that would be done. That's all I want to say on the principle erm of the criteria, as far as the detailed content erm er is concerned I suspect we could talk all day about whether social should replace affordable in one of the criteria, or whether the full stop is in the right place er in another one. E we largely are perfectly happy to leave that sir t to the panel, having considered the views on the very detailed comments on the criteria. Other than that I want to make just three comments on three important issues which have been raised. First of all is criteria, criterion. One that the new settlement should avoid er the greenbelt. That I think is absolutely er fundamental erm to the issue, and because of the way the practically the the greenbelt local plan has been defined, that means it has to be practically outside the outer boundary of the greenbelt. Secondly, the issue of eight rather than ten miles. The county council very early on, in fact the Greater York authority, this is criterion three. Did in fact with the Greater York districts initially take a view that it ought to be eight miles. Subsequent reflection and erm consideration of various comments that we that were received I think rightly persuaded the County Council and the district councils that in order to ensure erm a proper search and a proper consideration of all the factors, er that eight miles should be extended er to ten miles. And I think that that is probably the appropriate ground rule erm all that. And then the other issue I think is criterion twelve, erm avoid conflict with mineral and non-mineral development. Again I think that that is er an important consideration in Greater York. That is not to say that that necessarily will discount any area, but in erm reflection of paragraph thirty one of M P G one, I think it is important that that sort of issue erm er is included. So that's all I think I want to say chairman. Er time is progressing erm and obviously I would be interested to hear the debate.
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you Mr. [clears throat] Well could I have comments on the principle or principles of er by using criteria and then I'd like to go through the individual criteria or individual criterion one by one. Can I say obviously we have our own comments about these. Erm but to come back to the first criterion which says avoid the greenbelt, I know exactly what you mean when you say avoid the greenbelt, but if in the context of the wording before that where it says to be located beyond the outer boundary of the York greenbelt, do you need to have criterion one? Or is there another greenbelt which may also be er affected by a new settlement proposal?
[Mr P Davies:] I think erm as far as the green belt is policy H two in terms of its general presumption does direct erm erm the new settlement beyond the outer boundary of the greenbelt.
[Eric Barnett:] Mm.
[Mr P Davies:] Erm the criterion one that has been avoi has been described as a avoid the greenbelt to reflect the possibility or the theoretical possibility that er a new settlement could be er provided shall we say erm erm n on the inner edge of the greenbelt, if the scenario arose that the final definition of the York greenbelt did allow for that possibility to emerge. I think it's very unlikely but I think it described as one avoid the greenbelt, to be seen to be er encompassing all possibilities.
[Eric Barnett:] Yeah. Sorry I I have to cut across my advice to everybody else there. [clears throat] It does strike me though as a that A that one of the basic points is that if this is going in as structure plan guidance then we have to be satisfied that these are in fact criteria which can operate at the strategic level. Er and the other point which e you might like to comment is are they in effect set out in any order of precedence. A descending order or pri importance f in in terms of the strategic thinking.
[Mr P Davies:] Taking Peter, North Yorkshire. Taking the second point first, no there is no implied priority erm accorded to any of the criteria erm reflected in the order in which they are set out. I think it is certainly the members er input is required to balance and weight perhaps individual criteria when they have a body er of information before them, but certainly er there is no intention to er er to er weight the criteria or to imply that er one is er more or less important than twelve.
[D Whittaker:] I think it would be very helpful if participants could give us their views
[Mr P Davies:] Mm.
[D Whittaker:] as to whether there should be any order of priority. I think it would also be helpful to have participants reactions to the nature of the criteria.
[Mr P Davies:] Mm.
[D Whittaker:] Are they about what the new settlement should be like, if so is that an appropriate consideration for the structure plan. As opposed to are they about where the new settlement should be generally located? Which I know Mr will tell us is a matter for the structure plan. So I think there are a number of questions about the principle about the nature of criteria, what would be appropriate in a structure plan, what would not be appropriate in a structure plan as well as, would it be helpful, unhelpful, impossible to have some order of priority.
[Eric Barnett:] Mr and and and then Mr
[Mr Wincup:] , D O E. Er can I just respond briefly to Mr 's first point to to confirm that we've absolutely no objection to a more detailed set of criteria being included in the plan than is contained in P P G three. Er we wouldn't want the plan to be inhibited in that way. I if I can just remind participants of what we said in our original objection, that further justification will be required to demonstrate that the level of detail proposed in the deposited policy H two is not incompatible with P P G three and does not involve over detailed or unduly restrictive policy guidance.
[Eric Barnett:] Mm.
[Mr Wincup:] Now we would expect that justification to emerge from this examination and in due course to be embodied in the er lower case script for the alteration itself. But er I just wanted to confirm that we've no objection to more detailed set of criteria being included.
[Roy Donson:] Can I
[Eric Barnett:] Pro provided they're relevant at this level.
[Mr Wincup:] Quite so sir.
[Roy Donson:] Did you say, included in the lower case.
[Mr Wincup:] Er, D O E. Er as you know er Miss er w the structure plan highlights the policies in upper case and the reason justification is provided in lower case script.
[Roy Donson:] Yes I do but are y I'm sorry I'm not clear as to whether you are suggesting that there should be policy upper case criteria and some non policy lower case criteria.
[Mr Wincup:] Er, D O E. Er er simply er that the various upper case items which are listed one to twelve, are backed up in lower case script.
[Eric Barnett:] Mm.
[Mr Wincup:] And as we see it, that lower case script is not quite good enough to justify what's there at the moment. We would expect that to be amplified after this examination.
[Roy Donson:] I understand thank you.
[Eric Barnett:] Yeah. Yes. Thank you. Mr?
[Mr Brighton:] Paul, planning partnership. Am I right in erm my belief that in fact the the final version of policy H two erm need not and should not include a list of criteria other than those set out in P P G two paragraph thirty three. Because these criteria it seems to me are a means to an end, for us to decide upon an appropriate general location. Having determined that general location, I believe it should probably be at a district level but clearly there is a view from others that it needs to be a smaller area that that. It seems to me that it is then a matter for the local plan to erm promote or decide erm a more de probably more detailed list of lo c locational criteria, and then the local planning authority considers erm the alternative locations following public consultations and possibly invite erm schemes at that stage. So it seems to me if we can agree on what criteria might be appropriate to look at the location of the new settlement on a strategic level, the final version of H two will in fact probably be much shorter, more concise er than the policy H two that we have at the moment. Er and that's I think the basis of the erm strategy I've set out in my statement to the examination in public. The other difficulty I have is with some of these criteria and their use at a strategic level. Because it seems to me, many of them actually require a site specific evaluation or an area specific evaluation in quite detailed terms to be able to come to any sensible conclusion. For example, the question of minerals which Mr has erm raised. I think points to this erm issue erm very clearly. In the paper which erm was considered by the Greater York authorities in January nineteen ninety two, on the possible location of a new settlement, all of Selby District was ruled out of consideration erm for a new settlement because it was erm within part of the district is within the Selby coalfield. Now that flies in the face of erm I think the er the real position on the ground, which is that a development could take place within that district, even where areas have not yet been mined, without any adverse impact on the either the coalfield or the new settlement. And yet on that one issue, taken on its own, Selby District is ruled out. And there are others, agricultural land, again is a very site specific evaluation I think from this si erm generally. We recognize that any new settlement site er in the area around Greater York is likely to involve the loss of some better quality agricu har er agricultural land. And it seems to me that the use of these therefore at strategic level, many of them can only really be used if you're prepared to make erm huge assumptions or huge leaps of the imagination. And I in I invite I suppose the County Council really to respond to this issue of how they would intend erm indeed the districts, how they would intend to use these criteria certainly in a more rational and erm intellectually rigorous way than the sort of erm statements that were included in their January nineteen ninety two report.
[Eric Barnett:] Do you want to come back on that Mr or do you want to wait a few moments? Yes. Mr
[Mr P Davies:] Michael, Hambleton District Council. To come back on something that Mr said and perhaps take it a stage further. Mr said that erm the D O E would have no objection to more detailed criteria in the structure plan policy erm than erm included in paragraph thirty three of P P G three. I would perhaps add that erm the structure plan policy shouldn't exclude criteria that er are in P P G three. And I would erm particularly d draw your attention to criteria two there that erm the proposal should have district council support which I think is an important point of principle. And indeed if the panel are minded to recommend erm a criteria based policy of this nature, we would recommend the inclusion of this important point of principle....
[Eric Barnett:] Mr
[D Whittaker:] Tony,. I think there is a very real need for strategic guidance to be given by appropriate criteria being included in policy H two. However in my written statement, I have suggested that certain of the criteria are going to be more appropriate to a local plan rather than to a structure plan. My general comment with regard to the criterion number four is that more emphasis could be made upon the need to reduce car dependency
[Eric Barnett:] Yeah yeah.
[D Whittaker:] and alternative transport modes being promoted in addition to rail. Also I think that in criteria nine, that reference should be made to unacceptable coalescence being avoided. But my principle comment this morning is with regard generally to all criteria and with particular reference to criterion one, avoiding the greenbelt.
[Eric Barnett:] Mm.
[D Whittaker:] Now the planning system in this country, rightly gives the decision maker considerable discretion in exercising judgement regarding planning application, allowing all material considerations to be taken into account, and appropriate weighting given. However, policies that use unqualified phrases such as, will be or should only be, do not allow scope for all ma material considerations to be taken into account. Accordingly P P G three on paragraph thirty three states that a new settlement should normally only be contemplated where certain criteria are satisfied, including avoidance of the greenbelt. This flexibility of approach is repeated in P P G four, paragraph sixteen, where it states that advice on greenbelts where industrial and commercial development is not normally be appropriate, is provided in P P G two. Again in the recently published P P G six, paragraph forty six, it states that regional shopping centres may well have a role to play but usually only where the loss of greenbelt can be justified by the economic and social benefits of the scheme. P P G two clearly states that the government attaches great importance to greenbelts. and in paragraph twelve, sets out the general presumption against in appropriate development within them. However in paragraph thirteen, it does accept that in very special circumstances, exceptions can be made. While stating in paragraph fourteen that development plans should make no reference to the possibility of allowing other development in exceptional circumstances, nowhere in the P P G does it suggest that the authority should exclude the possibility that very special circumstances could justify an exception to be made. However policy H two as drafted, seeks to deprive the decision maker of the ability to consider all material considerations, by the unqualified use of the words will be required to and applies this to all twelve criteria without allowing discretion to be taken into account of any special circumstances that might present to justify exceptional development. Accordingly, the guidance given in P P G paragraph three should be followed by including the word normally in the policy requirement and the requirement for the new settlement to be beyond the outer edge of the York greenbelt so as to avoid the greenbelt, with then form part of the locational criteria one. This will also make H two consistent with the existing greenbelt development control policies E nine and E ten of the approved county structure plan which are still being retained and also the proposed open countryside policy E E two, all of which use the qualification, normally. Now my submission is not intended to be representation that the new settlement should be in the greenbelt and great weight must still be given to it's protection. However, no opportunity that otherwise complies with the locational criteria should be disregarded in seeking the best location for a new settlement that serves the needs of the greater York area. An area that was considered by the secretary of state as being five to seven miles of York City centre and is almost entirely within the greenbelt. Perhaps as a final word, I might be per better to echo the chief planning inspector Stephen who at this year's T C P summer school, said, Neither statute or policy rule out the practical application of common sense in unusual or exceptional circumstances. Thank you sir.
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you. Mr?
[Roy Donson:] Sir I I agree with the comments that Mr just made that basically policy H two in its present form has two functions. One is that of refining the area of search for the new settlement and secondly, more detailed erm criteria for the local plan stage. I think once you've refined the area of search and I think I agree with Mr on this, there are two or three key criteria. Namely if you if you take first of all the staring point that the new settlement should have good access to primary network, you immediately limit the area of search to the radial routes out of York. If you then take the point that it's beyond the greenbelt, again you've limited the area of search and if we take the point that Mr I think put across so well that it's consistent with sub-regional policy, you already immediately then rule out that part of the erm area round Greater York that would have greatest impact on the Leeds Conurbation. The other criteria just simply ones that common to an an enabling erm that we see everyday of of the week in in other structure plans. But because of the special circumstances of York we've got to first define and refine the area of search to a specific corridor and then the other locational criteria are just a guidance, first we take the proposals forward to the local plan stage. Thank you. Okay. Mr then Mr [clears throat]. Mr to round up and then we have coffee.
[R Thomas:] Er David, York City Council. Just a very brief statement sir to er make it clear as was stated in my evidence I support the comment made by Mr, from Hambleton that the criteria based policy should include the criteria as required by P P G three to indicate the requirements support of the District Council.
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you. [clears throat] Mr?
[M Courcier:] Michael. I I tend to agree that the criteria tend to fall into two sorts. Er one being descriptive in terms of describing the end product and I don't think that's very helpful to a structure plan, I think that is a matter that can be left to to the local plan. And that that overwhelmingly is of course erm criterion ten. Now I also agree that these criteria are not of equal importance and I certainly would put the greatest weight on criterion one which is to avoid the greenbelt in fact I think it's so important that it shouldn't be a criterion but it should be actually be within the preamble as it is now. So that it's not a matter which is weight to balance. In my professional view, cos if the new settlement has to be in is ch is i has to be within the greenbelt then it's better to go for peripheral development rather than have a new settlement in the first place. Erm... in t the second most important criterion I would have thought is that it needs to be on a public transport corridor. And that again is emphasised by P P three and it goes back to the erm the o the object of sustainability and reducing C O two emissions. The the third and I think very important criterion is the need to avoid is the need to comply with sub-regional planning objectives. And obviously the new settlement is a very important sub-regional er planning proposal, and it must comply with the overwhelming run of sub-regional planning policy which is to avoid doing anything which would erm undermine the regeneration of West Yorkshire. Now I think that is important enough to be specified in the policy in as a criterion in the policy itself. The other criteria I I I I tend to agree with are matters which are capable of being weighing and balancing against each other and they are not overriding, but I think those three matter which I specified are overriding and would rule out any location.
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you.
[M Courcier:] don't comply with.
[Eric Barnett:] Mr.
[Mr P Davies:] Yeah, I think just my only summing up comment would really be in response to perhaps Mr m Mr 's erm request for erm perhaps elaboration as to how we would use these criteria. I think I'd start off by saying that it's probably and likely to f that you could find in the Greater York area, between six and ten miles from the city centre, erm one location which met every one of the twelve criteria, one hundred percent. Erm let me give you an example. Mr and Mr have er laid great stress on the issue of sub-regional guidance erm and the implication that they would be happy with a new settlement location shall we say in the south west erm of the of the Greater York er area. Now it may well be that er that may well be the the position in the south west in in respect of of of that particular criteria, but we would need to see, er how a location in that area, met the other eleven criteria. And even looking at that one, erm erm the south west location, one would have to say that the increased accessibility erm which will shortly be afforded by the dualling of the northern section erm of the York outer relief road, er would increase the accessibility of areas to the north east of erm er of Greater York er to West Yorkshire. And I think that quite clearly proves that what you need to do is a detailed evaluation of all these criteria, all of them which reflect as a appropriate strategic guidance, to come er er to a balanced view. And it's not going to be difficult and at the end of the day, someone is going to have to I suspect, and it would have to be members initially erm who would do that, as far as we see it. Would have possibly to weight some of the criteria. That this is more important issue er er than that. That is the way the planning system operates, erm and I would have thought that the Greater York experience, erm does perhaps suggest that there may be some look at erm on the question of the need for sub district guidance. I I I'll go on no further than that.
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you. Can I can I say that I after coffee I'd like to go through each of these criteria and try to distinguish those which are relevant at structure plan level and those which may be more applicable down at the district local plan level. And also I'd welcome comments er we've had one from er Mr that whether there are any things which you think ought to be added as well as taken away. Can we reconvene at er twenty past eleven please. [break in recording] Can we er now embark on this assessment or analysis of the relevance of the criteria? Bearing in mind that er we'd like to try and distinguish those which would fall within a structure plan umbrella and those which would be more applicable possibly at local plan level. And also I'd like an indication as we go through of the relative weights that you might want to give to individual criterion. Can er take Mr Sorry Mr It's alright ah.
[speaker004:] [LAUGHTER]
[Eric Barnett:] So do we want to take the preamble and then and go through one by one. Mr
[Mr P Davies:] I'm very sorry chairman, er Mr n and I were checking er a point in response to a question that was asked to me during the break. Can you could just ask er again, I missed the
[Eric Barnett:] Ah well I said we we'd like to embark on this assessment of the relevance
[Mr P Davies:] Yeah.
[Eric Barnett:] of the criteria and try to allocate those which would fall under the structure plan umbrella, those which would be more applicable at local plan level and added to that, give some form of weighting.
[Mr P Davies:] Mm.
[Eric Barnett:] To each of those.
[Mr P Davies:] I really don't want to make any introductory remarks to that. Erm I think the criteria generally reflect appropriate strategic guidance but I'd be very interested to hear the contributions round the table. Right well we we go straight to number one which is proposals will be required to avoid the greenbelt. Mr did you want to speak on that?
[Mr Wincup:] Whip. On the general point of differentiating criteria between strategic and local, I think that one ought to bear in mind that some have importance in both connections and particularly I would draw attention to the perhaps overriding points made in paragraph thirty three of P P G three, regarding the avoidance of unacceptable coalescence and positive environmental improvements. Those in particular have connotations in both ways, for example in the sc the strategic level, er they might result in a whole sector being excluded from consideration.
[Eric Barnett:] Yes I fully accept that some of these are relevant at each level. Erm and I think we could quite happily define which those are. Does anybody dissent from the first criterion. Apart from my earlier comment that I felt it might be slightly otiose in the fact that you've suggested within the preamble that a new settlement should be located beyond the outer boundary and I did raise the question of whether there was another greenbelt which may come into play.
[Mr P Davies:] Erm well the only other greenbelt Peter, North Yorkshire, chairman. The only greenbelt erm er in North Yorkshire er is the is is the West Yorkshire statutory greenbelt in the Western part er of Selby District Council, but the area of land the area of search that we have defined as about er ten miles would not take in any er would not be of relevance to the West Yorkshire greenbelt.
[Eric Barnett:] No. So do you d do people think that criterion one is essential either at structure plan or l and local plan level? Mr? Council. I I'd like to see it retained chair because criterion three says generally within ten miles of York and er I'm sure somebody would er argue that well that's only a general rule still acceptable Well that we haven't got there yet we haven't got there yet. Well right er okay but erm supposing it was retained as it is, I'd certainly like to see criterion one retained in the list. Yes.
[D Whittaker:] Is the reference in the preamble to the policy, beyond the outer boundary of the York greenbelt in itself not enough?
[Eric Barnett:] Dave, Leeds City Council. Sorry chair my comments were in relation to the West Yorkshire greenbelt of course. Avoiding the West Yorkshire greenbelt. Yes. Yes.... Almost a double negative isn't it. But well can we move on to two and I must confess erm I'm not quite clear what is meant by this one....
[D Whittaker:] Perhaps I could point up some of the concerns about c the second criterion. Does all refer to timescale, size, land use or what?...
[Mr P Davies:] Peter, North Yorkshire. I think generally we think that that that it would refer to er to all three. I think the preamble the the the explanary explanatory text er with little two er indicates that really we are trying to address er erm a Greater York er dimension, that we are looking at a proposal er which meets the er development needs erm of Greater York over the period er that the contribution should be made through the new settlement.
[D Whittaker:] I can envisage being at a public local enquiry th it would not be me, where a barrister would make a great deal of an argument that York needs a regional shopping centre. Do you actually mean that you want this if that case were proven that you would want the regional shopping centre in the new settlement?
[Eric Barnett:] Mr.
[M Courcier:] Er Malcolm Malcolm, County Council. Er I'm not sure in in the case of the the example you've given of the arising in Greater York that the question of a regional sop shopping centre would arise because that is not necessarily something that is generated within Greater York. The shopping requirements, the sub-regional shoppings of Greater York and obviously the accommodated er within Greater York but obviously something of that nature is is er is not part of those considerations.
[D Whittaker:] It is an extreme example Mr, trying to point out the sorts of problems that arise in relation to policies which say more than they mean. And all has one definition. It is all embracing. I'm not sure that the word all is appropriate.
[Eric Barnett:] As written it strikes me as being a hostage to fortune. Mr.
[Mr Brighton:] Yes er I I agree wholeheartedly because I can imagine if this ended up in Selby what might be proposed under this umbrella. Erm bearing in mind the planning policies. Erm I think it should be quite specific and it should say the housing needs. I would suggest that all be substituted by housing.
[Eric Barnett:] Mr?
[Mr Brighton:] Paul, planning partnership.... I also have difficulty with this particular criterion. erm I accept the point that that has been made that the word all is too all embracing. And perhaps it needs to be restricted to the housing and employment er needs arising from Greater York. The other difficulty I have is in the er the lower case text which ex attempts to explain what is meant by this particular criterion, the sorts of considerations that will be taken into account. And it states,... that [reading] the requirement will be interpreted to preclud preclude locations which might positively encourage in migration or create pressures for additional land releases []. Now I am not sure how those sorts of issues could be objectively measured and therefore assessed. Erm and I you know would welcome a response from the County Council on on that point.
[D Whittaker:] Can I suggest that the again the employment needs of Greater York could be a hostage to fortune. If I... have got the right grasp of what the County Council and most people around the table are aiming for, the new settlement is primarily about housing. But what is not wanted is a housing estate, but the employment that is related to, not Greater York's employment but the employment related to the level of development in the settlement. Am I right?
[Mr Brighton:] Yes I would not erm Paul, planning partnership. I would not disagree with that approach er one of the problems in dealing with this erm criterion by criterion is that er I can't refer to other points I've made elsewhere on other aspects. Erm elsewhere in my statement I have indicated an appropriate provision of employment land which is related to the population size which we are suggesting for the new settlement. Er it should not be a an unconstrained figure for employment, it should be related to the economically active in the new settlement that is proposed.
[Mr P Davies:] Erm Peter, North Yorkshire. Erm while I wouldn't disagree with with that general sentiment, I would probably disagree with what that figure should be but we'll be turning to that er next week. I think the general concept that we is that we do not want to erm envisage we hope we will not envisage proposals which generate a scale of development erm which is quite clearly not related erm to the needs of the Greater York area. And may be more related to to the needs erm of of of of of other areas. And erm how we actually measure I I would accept is d is somewhat difficult and I think it's based on erm a a an assessment er a professional assessment of the issues that are current to the criteria. I think difficulties in in introducing any statistical measurement to it and again it's value judgements er which need to be tested. Erm in due course at er at erm forums such of this. Could I just clarify one other point, erm I did incorrectly advise the panel on the ten miles. Erm erm in respect of the West Yorkshire greenbelt. And strict interpretation of the ten miles and Mr reminded me would just pinch in a little bit erm of the of the West Yorkshire greenbelt. So I if I put that in, I must apologize for misleading the panel.
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you. Yes yes. Thank you. It's alright.... Mr? [tape change]
[Mr Brooke:] , Associates. If I could just make a brief point on employment. While certainly in my earlier comments, I did say that it is highly desirable that there should be employment in any new settlement, it cannot in my view be the case that th York has certain erm Greater York, but York in particular as a city has certain employment requirements as a result of decline in certain industries. It also has certain opportunities, for example the University has already shown itself to be a leading research centre. And there are certain strategic reasons why the I feel that a number of the employment needs of York in terms of location, advantages, and other advantages, would not match with the new settlement criteria once they're put. And for that reason er certainly some modification of that criteria is necessary. So I wonder, could I just crave your indulgence very briefly. I have a a pressing engagement to go to. Could I possibly make my one one minute comment on criteria eleven?
[Eric Barnett:] You can yes.
[Mr Brooke:] Er I hope that won't disturb you or er Sir my comment briefly is I I did indicate in my opening er statement er yesterday, that there is in existence and I don't wish to make too much of this at this particular enquiry, but you should be aware of a new settlement proposal in the Leeds district, outside the statutorily defined greenbelt. That new settlement is while it's within the Leeds district, is on the north eastern perimeter of that district. One of the advantages of that proposal and its interrelationship with any proposal within certain sectors of Greater York, is the question about migration from West Yorkshire but in particular from Leeds. That out migration had generally been running according to the household projections, at something like two thousand per annum. It is projected to fall to somewhere round the fifteen hundred, fourteen per annum, towards the end of this decade. Thereereere ors of Greater York, is the ven? of thety two report.
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you, the point which Mr has made yesterday, I think will continue to make. Mr. Er yes chair, I'm not going to repeat the point I made yesterday but simply to clarify that the proposal Mr has outlined is not a proposal incorporated in the deposit U D P. Thank you. But I I take the sentiment of Mr 's comment.
[Mr P Davies:] Chairman, can I queue for your Peter, North Yorkshire. Chairman could I also confirm that the County Council would not be prepared to discount any particular sector in Greater York on the basis of one criteria, even if that was a valid criteria in the terms that er that Mr suggested. We need to look at all twelve.
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you, can we go back to two, I I Mr and Mr, are your comment related to criterion two? Mr first.
[Mr P Davies:] Michael, Hambleton District Council. I think bearing in mind the clear intentions behind criteria two and the concern that we've heard over the last three days about inward migration, it might be useful if we tag a rider onto erm criteria two. Perhaps I'm not suggesting this as a sort of erm a definite wording just as a s sug as a suggestion erm to the effect that the settlement should best serve the development needs arising in Greater York rather than the demand generated from outside the area. Something to that effect....
[Eric Barnett:] Mr?
[Roy Donson:] Chris,. I can... share the concerns of er Miss concerning the expression of the word all in criterion two. I mean conceivably on the tail end of policy H one yesterday, the new settlement isn't going to accommodate all the development needs of Greater York. I think the the answer to that is that the reference e should be made to the village making a significant contribution to the development needs of Greater York, be it housing, employment or comm erm social and community.
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you. Anyone else got any comments on two.... What sort of weight do you want to attach to this?... Mr?
[Mr Brighton:] Yes I'm I'm sorry,. I'm in a bit of difficulty when you say what sort of weight because w we need to have some sort of scale I think but
[speaker004:] [LAUGHTER] up to ten.
[Mr Brighton:] I I would simply say that I think it does deserve maximum weight because I you will not be surprised to hear, er take the same view as Mr from Leeds City Council, that under no circumstances should the the settlement be located anywhere other than in a location which will serve York and not Leeds. So it is strategically a most important erm criterion. But I I
[Eric Barnett:] It's one of the the leading criteria.
[Mr Brighton:] Yes.
[Eric Barnett:] Put it that way. Mr.
[M Courcier:] Michael. I think that two and a eleven basically say the same thing in different in different ways. Erm they are the crit the two criteria which I I consider alongi along with the greenbelt and the need to be located on a public transport corridor, which must be given the most weight in the in the decision making process. the need to avoid locations which stim which stimulate. I think the word sir I would emphasise is stimulate in migration from West Yorkshire, would be clearly contrary to all the established planning principles which have been endorsed by the Secretary of State time and time again. And I think it's I would give very great weight to this partic these two criteria put together and and I think they should be made more explicit sir. And they they should be an explicit criteria saying that locations should be avoided which stimulate as I say, in migration.
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you. Mr, coming in or are you just?
[Mr Brighton:] Oh sorry.
[Eric Barnett:] A slight aberration. As as we've actually had policy er criterion eleven raised by Mr, erm I don'think there's any dissenting voice about the weight on that or the importance of that particular criterion, is that regional and sub-regional policies. I know I know I'm taking it out of order but rather than wait until we get there, this has been raised, why can't we deal with it now?... Mr?
[Mr Brighton:] It it does seem to me Paul, planning partnership. It does seem to me that criterion eleven erm is has already been covered erm by implication in items er criteria two er and probably three as well. And I I don't see there is a need for an additional reference to those policies, it seems to me that erm the references to in migration pressures are correct as a consideration erm if you like as a erm numerical basis in terms of assessing what have been made in the county. But it is difficult, it seems to me, to to use them in a sort of very locational sense which is being suggested by their use as one of the criteria.
[D Whittaker:] We've heard that... avoiding stimulating in migration, particularly from the Leeds conurbation is an important consideration, are they conscious that the rest of regional policy is something of a black box at the moment. And I think it would be helpful to the panel to have a feel for whether the Leeds in migration issue, is the only aspect of regional, sub-regional policy or whether there are other aspects of it which are important or be it perhaps less important.
[Mr P Davies:] Peter, North Yorkshire. On the particular issue of regional migration as it affects Greater York, I would suspect and we can probably put some information in to confirm this that the linkages between Greater York area and other county areas within er Yorkshire and Humberside, vary. I I I say probably quite definitely that there is not a great linkage between the Greater York area in numeric terms and and all of Humberside, compared to that linkage erm with with with West Yorkshire. Certainly as far as South Yorkshire is concerned, again we would have to say that the linkage social soc socioeconomic linkage between Greater York a and South Yorkshire er is very limited....
[Eric Barnett:] Er well Mr first Mr, please.
[Mr Brighton:] Yes er Gerald,. I I have to disagree with er Mr of, I think this criterion is crucially important and in fact what Peter has just said, reemphasises my view that er the important sub-regional and regional issue is the relationship between York and Leeds in this er under this criterion. And I'd just like to take the opportunity to er emphasise the point that I have been making at this E I P that erm r regional migration from the West Yorkshire is reducing and we don't want to create a magnet which reverses that trend. Er so I would regard this impo this criterion as critical very er it should be given the greatest of weight and erm must be left in.
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you, Mr?
[Mr Wincup:] Er, D O E. Erm as you know sir, you've heard already er the department has not yet received advice from the region as to the content of strategic guidance. N we ourselves have just started to put together our first thoughts on it in advance of receiving that advice, but clearly it's much to early to be coming to getting the conclusions as to what that g guidance will eventually contain. I would therefore think it's appropriate to be in this sort of format er so that if any other issues other than questions of in migration appear to be relevant to this situation, then it can be taken on the move.
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you. Mr?
[Mr P Davies:] Yes just very briefly. Peter, North Yorkshire. I do think the discussion so far and the contribution from Mr and Mr is unfairly er at this stage erm prejudicing a proper assessment of er er er a for a new settlement all the way round Greater York including the Southwest and I return to a comment I made before the break, that dualling for example of the outer bypass of the York ring road which is programmed and is, will dramatically change may well dramatically change the perception erm erm of people to the to the west of the Greater York area in respect of the area to the north east. That is a fact, it is coming. Now that issue, needs to be borne in mind. Er in the in in the overall evaluation. So it's not quite as simple to say that regional planning, sub-regional planning requires er a discount a strong discount erm to the south west of York, I think the issue is rightly addressed and we need to address it, but I must say the conversation so far, and and the contributions, really need to be weighted in one direction.
[Eric Barnett:] Er well I realize we're beg being given illustrations, but I don't think there's anybody really dissenting apart from Mr, to the inclusion of eleven is there. As as one of the criteria.
[Mr P Davies:] Well I'm not arguing for the exclusion of eleven, I'm just trying to er give a balanced interpretation as to how it should be assessed.
[Eric Barnett:] We we haven't got there yet, so let's wait. Mr.
[R Thomas:] Thank you chair. Now David, York City Council. I'd just actually like to support what Mr said because erm the next er government reviews. The City Council examines travel patterns from settlements around York, and it was quite noticeable that a number of settlements to the north east of York did actually have a substantial commuting pattern to West Yorkshire. To. So I mean, Mr is quite correct in saying there's already a significant er commuting movement between settlements to the north of York and and Leeds.
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you. Mr?
[R Thomas:] Erm I have to concur with that but nevertheless, er the north east sector is further away from Leeds than the south west sector of York. One has to go through past or around York erm for your shopping facilities. One isn't gonna go past York to get to Leeds. If one is between York and Leeds, one has a a more distinct choice as to go to one or the other. My preference er under this er item eleven, would be to clarify as far as we are able in terms of the regional planning guidance that exists, to state what we f what is meant by it. Now we either are going in the direction this morning, or rather I think you're being pressed to go in the direction of seeking to identify in due course, what is the preferred general location, and this undoubtedly is something you can hang your hat on. It's not as airy-fairy as some of the other criteria that er er might be considered as relevant to erm try and find a general location for this settlement. I believe eleven should clarify that in view of the regional planning guidance, in view of the comments made by Leeds, er that it should one should state under this criteria that the new settlement should not be located on the south west side of York. For for for precisely the reason set under regional planning guidance.
[speaker004:] Unacceptable.
[Eric Barnett:] I think
[D Whittaker:] Sorry I don't think that was heard for the record Mr.
[Mr P Davies:] That would be unacceptable chairman as far as the County Council's concerned.
[R Thomas:] Well unacceptable it may be in your present state of mind, but
[speaker004:] [LAUGHTER]
[R Thomas:] But we we cannot It seems to me we cannot end up with a blank sheet of paper, and draw a set of criteria up which says it it can be anywhere here.
[Eric Barnett:] I think we're beginning to stray into what I hope will be a fruitful discussion on Tuesday morning.... Can we move to criterion number three? We've now dealt with one, two and eleven. Criterion three.... You've made a qualification to this have you not Mr?
[Mr P Davies:] Yes.
[Eric Barnett:] Yes.
[Mr P Davies:] There is a a proposed change put in on this.
[Eric Barnett:] Anybody want to comment on that?... Silence means acceptance?... Mr.
[Mr Brighton:] Thank you sir. Paul, planning partnership. I think we have to go back to what is the fundamental purpose of the York new settlement and that is to meet some of the development plan requirements of the Greater York area. And it seems to me axiomatic that the further the new settlement is located away from York City Centre, York City, then less likely it will be erm to meet the housing requirement needs of the Greater York area. And it seems to me that the outer suggested limit of ten miles is unduly generous and that there are more than sufficient sites available within a radius of six to eight miles from York City Centre. And certainly from my submission to you in the Selby district, I have shown that er the the plan which was enclosed with the written evidence.
[D Whittaker:] How does ten miles relate to the definition of the Greater York study area?
[Mr P Davies:] as a general erm guideline chairman, the Greater York study area has a some degree of consistency with the outer boundary erm of the York greenbelt which is generally around about six miles erm from the Greater York er er from from the City Centre. And in fact, quite fortuitously we did bring along a plan today which has a six mile radius, erm from the Centre of York which was er the subject of some discussion at the greenbelt local plan enquiry and by and large, erm there is some consistency between the outer boundary or the greenbelt erm and the Greater York study area, both at around about six miles from the city centre.
[D Whittaker:] I don't understand that.
[Mr P Davies:] That is the
[D Whittaker:] If the circle that I'm looking at is six miles, which you've implied it is.
[Mr P Davies:] Yeah.
[D Whittaker:] Then the... surely the Greater York study area's more than six miles otherwise all development's in the Greater York area's within the greenbelt....
[M Courcier:] Mal Malcolm, County Council. The the outer boundary of the Greater York area was the parish boundaries. It's based on parish unions. The outer boundary of the greenbelt is based on physical features, they're not necessarily follow exactly the same features all the way round the Greater York Greater York area. Erm in some places the Greater York area or the greenbelt extends beyond the Greater York area in some places, the Greater York area goes within the greenbelt.
[Eric Barnett:] The the memo I've got is that the new settlement provision according to the structure plan, relates to the the Greater York area.
[Mr P Davies:] Yes....
[Eric Barnett:] But the actually new settlement would have to be located outside the Greater York area, as you are now defining it.
[Mr P Davies:] Yes that's correct. It would be a provision both outside the erm Greater York area and because of the erm statutory definition of the greenbelt being about six miles erm from from York City Centre, it would also be outside the greenbelt.
[Eric Barnett:] Which comes back to the question which Miss raised yesterday What is in reality the Greater York area. As distinct from what is the Greater York study area?
[Mr P Davies:] Well I
[Eric Barnett:] Are they are they coincidental?
[Mr P Davies:] Well erm the Greater York study area has been defined and it is that area erm on the front of the erm of the Greater York er study document. That is the area which has been used for the last five or six years as the basis of the And that outer boundary more or less coincides with the outer boundary erm of the York greenbelt. Coming back to what is er er greater what is greater York, you would need to have to assess to look at the socioeconomic linkages with with er with York. And depending on how you erm which criteria you use, they may well vary. You may define Greater York on a erm on a different basis u if you use for example as against number of trips to theatres. Or shopping in York. But generally the feeling is that the appropriate sort of area for Greater York er in terms of the main linkages erm are is that defined in the Greater York study, which appeared to er find some support in the local government commission for example. As being an appropriate erm area to look at....
[Eric Barnett:] Mr.
[Mr Brooke:] Ian, Ryedale District. Erm I think the proposal for rewording this policy to within eight miles of York is being unnecessarily restrictive. As can be seen from the map up there in the north eastern sector, the proposed outer boundary of the greenbelt goes beyond the six miles anyway, and is probably nearer seven miles. Erm there are a number of objections to the outer boundary on the greenbelt in that area which if they came u came up, on an eight mile boundary, would reduce the area of search to something like three quarters of a mile....
[Eric Barnett:] Mr and then Mr.
[D Whittaker:] Tony, Congle. Er with regard to the definition of the Greater York area, I referred to this earlier on in my submission this morning, but it may er assist the panel if I draw attention to the Secretary of State's letter in approving the structure plan in nineteen eighty seven. Particularly paragraph er five point eleven. Erm with your permission sir, I'll read it out. The Secretary of State has noted the panels suggestion that the boundaries of the Greater York area should be outside the York greenbelt area. But having regard to the document Policies for Housing and Industrial Land in the Greater York Area, on which the County Council has based their proposed provision, and to which the panel referred, he considers that the outer boundary of the Greater York area, should be about five and seven miles from the City Centre, the precise boundary being a consideration for local planning. As a result, he accepted the housing provision of nine thousand one hundred as recommended by the panel, compared with the ten thousand one hundred in policy H one of the submitted. Following that er the Greater York study area er was defined by the County Council erm in consultation with the Greater York authorities and er as has been explained to you, it is substantially following the boundary of the greenbelt as defined. Now if I can just refer as I did in my earlier submission to the possible results of that, I suggested that the requirement for the new settlement to be located beyond the outer boundary of the green er York greenbelt, should be rolled into criterion one, the need to avoid the greenbelt. Now in criterion three, it also goes on to say, and have as close a relationship to the city as is consistent with approved greenbelt policy. Now it it just possible and I will explain in a moment why, that the necessity to avoid the greenbelt may not be exactly the same as being beyond the outer boundary of the York greenbelt. The reason for this is that in my submission to the York greenbelt local plan enquiry, I suggested that there could be a case for making an inset within the greenbelt to accommodate a new settlement. Thus excluding it from greenbelt designation. If my submission is accepted in the inspector's report, it is possible that it would be consistent with approved greenbelt policy to have an inset new settlement avoiding the greenbelt but not outside the outer boundary of the York greenbelt. it is for this reason firstly to identify the gree er the Greater York area as considered by the Secretary of State, and also to with regard to criterion three, er the question of consistency with agreed agreed approved greenbelt policy that I make this further comment.
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you. Well you'll have to wait and see what the inspector says on the greenbelt.
[D Whittaker:] That I will accept sir out of great interest. But it also follows from that that the panel here can make no assumption other then the greenbelt is as in the deposited plan. ,. Yes I appreciate that inclusion as well.
[Eric Barnett:] Mr.
[Roy Donson:] Yes, Chris,. Erm you'll see sir in my submissions that I've proposed a rewording of criterion three so that the Greater York new settlement should be located as close to the outer boundary of the as of the York greenbelt as is consistent with greenbelt policy. The reason behind this is having regard to the advice in the draft P P G thirteen and what we read in P P G twelve about erm trying to reduce dista erm distances travelled. And I think that in the balance, that if you have two sites in e the area of search that are equal in all other respects, except that one is closer to York than the other, then the environmental considerations of that site being closer erm to York would weigh in its favour. I speak with e some experience in the situation where two sites that will be within half a mile of that which was erm supported by the inspector, were dismissed basically on the basis that if I read the quotes for you. Of the western sites these are sorry this is also one of the furthest from Cambridge. Whilst there is no great dis difference in the distance of any of the sites in terms of, in aggregate, all the journeys which would be attracted to Cambridge, bearing in mind the role of the new settlement in serving Cambridge's development needs, would be substantially higher in money terms and in the use of energy than most of the alternative proposals. I would totally agree with that conclusion and I would say that in the York situation, you should choose the one that is closer to York than is farthest out. All other things being equal.
[Eric Barnett:] But we have a band of six to ten miles, is that right Mr?
[Mr P Davies:] Yes.
[Eric Barnett:] Yes.
[Roy Donson:] S I would say that you're better off Chris,. You're better off rewording that criterion to say as close en er to York as is consistent with greenbelt policy.
[Eric Barnett:] Mr
[R Thomas:] Thank you sir. Erm erm get my mind round the relationship between this policy and the H one policy. Erm and it's something I hadn't quite considered before, that the greenbelt boundary and the Greater York area boundary is roughly. In fact it looks if if anything, the greenbelt boundary is slightly wider than the Greater York area boundary. In policy H one, it's talking about nine thousand seven hundred and twenty in the Greater York area. Is that the greenbelt.
[Mr P Davies:] There will be requirement for part of Peter, North Yorkshire, part of the Greater York requirement that that is the new settlement required to be met outside the greenbelt and outside the the Greater York area.
[R Thomas:] But Er,. Policy H one doesn't say that.
[Eric Barnett:] The need to look carefully at the wording on that particular part of H one.... Mr
[Mr Wincup:] . [clears throat] There is an argument for retaining a four mile annulus for the area of search for the new settlement rather than a two mile, because of the rigidity which at present applies to the distance of the outer boundary of the greenbelt from York City Centre. Historically this was created shortly after nineteen sixty one as a rough way of judging the submissions which had been made for sketch plan purposes on the basis of the nineteen fifty five circular. And the six mile doctrine has been repeated with one minor modification of wording ever since then. At the time of the greenbelt enquiry, an extension beyond six miles of the greenbelt could not be considered because a general revision of the county structure plan was not envisaged. On a general revision, there might well be a case for extending that distance in view of the development of the central area which has taken place since the six miles was first established. it has been considerable. And that has resulted in the restriction of the annulus width of the greenbelt. Er in other words the inner boundary has gone out since nineteen sixty one and the outer boundary has not. Therefore, for practical purposes, it would be better not to restrict the search area outside the belt to two miles now, but to have four miles.
[Eric Barnett:] Yes. So in other words you you are saying instead of six to eight, it's six to ten.
[Mr Wincup:] Yes.
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you. I think Mr was in front of you Mr.
[Mr Wincup:] I do apologize.
[Eric Barnett:] Sorry. Mr.
[Mr Wincup:] , D O E. Just some points there. Sir. The area of search six to ten miles there. I was just gonna point out that if you were to refer to the approved key diagram, you can get a quite easily visual representation of what that embraces. There are certain things marked on that key diagram to give you clues. The position of Tadcaster for instance on the fifty nine to the west, the red triangle which indicates a bypass at. In the north west it's roughly where the A nineteen meets the east coast mainline railway. And on the north east it's just a little short of where the York Scarborough railway crosses the A sixty four. The only point I'd make on that sir, you'll see from that that the ten mile limit does extend across the county boundary into Humberside. And there have been er quite detailed negotiations between the two counties and my understanding is that North Yorkshire County Council have agreed with Humberside that on no account will their their proposals stray across the boundary into Humberside.
[Eric Barnett:] Yes I I I had noted that that discussion had gone on and assurances have been given to Humberside that North Yorkshire would no stray in the sense of putting their new settlement into Humberside. Mr.
[Roy Donson:] Thank you, Roy, House Builders Federation. Erm this issue about the extent er of Greater York. I I have a always understood the distinction between the Greater York study area which is an area of calculation of among other things, housing needs and the Greater York area which was an area in which those needs may be met. I think there's there there's a distinction between the pair and they're not necessarily the same area. And so the point that Mr makes that because you have you you assess needs within a six mile radius effectively, er doesn't necessarily mean you meet those needs er within that six mile radius. So there there doesn't there isn't a conflict and th and there isn't a conflict because we have the area of search for a new settlement which is established in the referred to which is broader than the study area.
[Eric Barnett:] do you want to go back on it?
[Mr P Davies:] Just very briefly, I think that erm the point Mr raised is a fair point and erm there may well need to be a good bit of clarification erm on on that.
[Eric Barnett:] Mr?
[R Thomas:] Well e erm I don't want to dwell on this point but it it may have implications wider than just where these boundaries are. Er because the commitments figures we looked at and the need figures are are they the Greater York area or the Greater York study area?
[Mr P Davies:] Sorry.
[R Thomas:] All the discussion we had in the last few days.
[Eric Barnett:] the ones that have been asked for. the discussion we had.
[Mr P Davies:] The figures that erm the nine thousand seven hundred dwellings, related to the housing need generated within the Greater York study area together with appropriate allowance for migration, and that totals nine thousand seven hundred dwellings. It's on the basis of the the parishes within the area that we have defined erm as the Greater York a Greater York study area.
[D Whittaker:] I think. And I'm sorry if this is going to ruin Mr 's weekend.
[speaker004:] [LAUGHTER]
[D Whittaker:] It is not going to be helpful to have the panel supplied with the information we asked for in relation to the Greater York area devised from the H B F table of commitments, confined to York City and the greenbelt. I think what we need is commitments within the area of search.
[M Courcier:] Er which month would you like that information?...
[D Whittaker:] Well the area of search is defined on the key diagram. Which month, November nineteen ninety three, preferably before the twenty third.
[M Courcier:] Er yes we'll do our best.
[D Whittaker:] Thank you.
[Eric Barnett:] [clears throat] Mr.
[speaker004:] er John, C P R E. Just just er just so I can be absolutely sure about that I think I'm say I'm asking the same thing that the senior inspector's just asked. The commitments data that we've been dealing with to date, for the Greater York area, that was supplied by the County Council, was that data that applied to the what we're now calling the the the the greenbelt area, or was it the area of search as well? Because I think erm it it does somewhat alter the discussions that we've had to date i clarification of that.
[Mr P Davies:] All figures that we've produced and are producing in respect of commitments and the policy element the Greater York policy element of policy H one, relate to within the area defined as Greater York through the Greater York. They have not been they are not the area covered by the er York greenbelt because as Mr said, er er greenbelt boundaries follow natural features rather than administrative boundaries which we use for the for the Greater York study. And the figures that we worked out are not the figures for commitments within the six to ten mile area of search.
[Eric Barnett:] Yeah.
[Mr P Davies:] They are for that area on the Greater York study.
[speaker004:] So just just on that basis Mr chairman, therefore presumably on Tuesday there will be an opportunity to revisit some of those figures in the light of the revised data that the the senior inspector requested from Mr.
[Eric Barnett:] Let me see the figures and I'll dwell on that over the weekend. Mr.
[M Courcier:] Michael. My concern about this criterion and and my concern about the information asked by the panel, is of course the area of search includes areas which I don't think any house builder would consider falls within the York housing market. It in fact includes quite substantial areas which are now in in fact includes parts of Leeds Metropolitan Borough. Therefore parts of erm areas which actually relate to the housing needs of York. I I like do support a narrower area of search for that reason. Particularly as in to the west and south of York, the ten mile radius gets you very very close to Wetherby and very close to Selby, which are not areas which fall within the York housing market....
[Eric Barnett:] Mr? Thank you, Lindsey, Harrogate Borough Council. Just to pick up a point on er Miss 's latest request for information. Erm the housing need figure we've been working on for Greater York has been nine thousand seven hundred and that's been based on the parishes within the Greater York study area. Presumably if we're now looking at commitment in the wider area of search which would draw in many additional parishes, I think in the Harrogate case er something like seven to eight additional parishes, er if we look at commitments there would we also need to revise the housing need figure as well? To look at it on a comparable basis.
[D Whittaker:] I think there is a danger of too much being made of this. The reason we asked for the figures is to get a ball park idea. No more than that. We certainly would not wish to open up the question of need within that area. I also take the point Mr has made, and only assure you that we will look at these figures when we get them and take on board the sorts of comments that have just been made by yourself and Mr and by and use them with our judgement applied liberally.... [tape change]
[Mr P Davies:] Peter, North Yorkshire. You will in producing those figures chairman, ten miles have to approximate the ten miles
[Eric Barnett:] Yes yes yes yes yeah yeah.... As best we can.... Have we Mr?
[speaker004:] Sorry just just er John, C P R E. Just one minor point. Obviously erm in in receiving those additional figures I accept what the in senior inspector says about not er opening up the need side of the debate but clearly is I think the er Mr from Harrogate is saying it does it does cast a question mark on the supply dimension of the debate in terms of additional and commitments coming into the the figures to meet the Greater York housing requirement. So whilst I'm not seeking to change the the the Greater York I E within the greenbelt requirement as we now define it, the the supply side of the equation is bound to change because the commitments figures will be different given the revised area of analysis.
[Eric Barnett:] Mr.
[M Courcier:] Malcolm, County Council. accept the point that's been made, we've got to remember that the commitments that are are contained in the band six to ten miles, are principally there to meet the general requirements arising in the districts
[speaker004:] Yeah.
[M Courcier:] and they're not there t as they are at the moment to meet the needs of the Greater York area.
[Eric Barnett:] Yes yes.... Anyone wish to add any comments on criterion three or can we move to four?... [clears throat]...
[D Whittaker:] May I play devil's advocate again? Erm two things occur to me from this criterion. First of all, the risk that... on the assumption primary road network includes trunk roads as well as County Council primary roads, is it right that we should encourage essentially local traffic onto trunk roads. I'm sure those familiar with P P Gs will recall their purpose, moving people long distances from A to B. Not carrying local traffic. And secondly, is it right within this criterion, to put more emphasis on car transport or bus transport. Road transport of some sort than rail transport. Which by virtue its of its phraseology, the criterion appears to me to do.
[Mr P Davies:] Peter, North Yorkshire, chairman. Just to comment on the senior inspector's first point. I think erm one would have to ac er accept that in Greater York, erm the existing pattern of trunk roads as they affect Greater York, do discharge an important function in distributing people around er Greater York and it's entirely sensible in the Greater York dimension that they would do. If they weren't there and if they weren't being used, then there may well be more and more p pressure on the city centre of York, so they do discharge I think er a positive function. The bypass for example allowing people to move round er Greater York without passing through the er through the city centre and I think that's par part of the County Council and I suspect City Council's overall approach to traffic management in Greater York....
[M Courcier:] Michael Michael. I agree with the panel that the criterion should give greater emphasis to public transport, that must be in accord with P P G three and must be in accord with the emerging P P G thirteen.... It also should give greater emphasisis to the ability to link into the rail network. On the question of trunk roads and the general capacity of the road system around York, the panel will see that we have actually presented some detailed evidence prepared by and I and for the information for the panel on Tuesday, I understand that all that information is agreed with the County Surveyor as well. So that's w is an agreed position on highways. Now in we have also consulted with the Department of Transport about our proposal and the Department of transport have no objections to the use of the A sixty four north east of York to serve a new settlement.
[Eric Barnett:] Have you got that?... Mr
[Mr Brighton:] Paul, planning partnership. Er whatever agreements may have been made with the Department of Transport and the County Surveyor regarding the acceptability north east of York of course doesn't mean that other locations are also not un not acceptable under this criterion. Erm I've expressed a view in my written submissions that I think the emphasis solely on rail erm access i is unfortunate and perhaps should be widened to er public transport generally, obviously rail access plus rail transport has a particular type of usage. Erm in terms of York, the pattern of employment er within York City is fairly dispersed and obviously isn't particularly well served by the Central Railway station. Er a bus system however is more able to provide a more diffuse pattern of access to those areas, from outside, wherever the new settlement is located.... I'm sorry, if I could just make on other point. You raised this question of whether or not I think the new settlement should link into the primary net road network. Erm in my view, it has to link in somewhere into the primary i into the road network and it's not appropriate to link it into er the local road system and er therefore I think it's inevitable that a linkage will need to be made to the primary road network.
[D Whittaker:] Including into possibly into a trunk road?...
[Mr Brighton:] I think if erm if you can avoid a trunk road then that is a preferable solution erm if you're able to rely on just County Council roads then that is a better solution.
[Eric Barnett:] Mr [clears throat] Ed, Leeds City Council. erm perhaps I've misunderstood Miss 's comment on it but Leeds would not want the consideration of traffic consequences to be limited to roads within North Yorkshire. Depending on the location of the new settlement, it it could have traffic consequences beyond North Yorkshire boundaries.... Mr.
[D Whittaker:] , North York. Er the point I would like to make if I may is with er regard to the question of a a positive statement er that car dependency should be reduced and er more emphasis given to the availability and use of bus transport erm as well as t er rail transport. I think in the context of the Greater York area, er bus transport will have greater relevance. It will be more accessible, most importantly it'll be more affordable. Given the relative costs of bus transport compared with rail. An interesting comment from the national travel survey, nineteen eighty nine ninety one report, is that trains were mainly used by those living in the highest income households. In contrast, local bus usage was associated with those living in the lowest income households. Bearing in mind that given a choice between the use of rail and car, the question of cost necessarily will come into that equation. If the costs are not significantly lower, people will til still tend to use the car. The other aspect with regard to the new settlement is that it should contain a significant proportion of affordable housing. This in itself I think indicates that there should be affordable transport as a corollary. The other point I would like to make is the question of the impact on the er highway system. I think, taking into the equation of er discussing and considering alternative travel arrangements, the availability and indeed the extension of park and ride facilities around York should be taken into account and an integrated transport pattern, based on park and ride should figure within the transport strategy.
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you. Mr?
[R Thomas:] York City Council. Er during my comments yesterday sir, I you'll not be surprised that if with a very strong emphasis on if, er the the panel do go for a new settlement, we do in York feel very strongly that er the issue of priority for public transport usage should be a very high one in this criteria. Er I note the comments made around the table about the the likelihood of rail based er traffic making a significant contribution. I would share that expectation that er a location which will be ra well served by rail, whilst very desirable from our viewpoint, I think is extremely unlikely er given the pattern of the the rail system in the area. Similarly with public transport, as I said yesterday, the evidence is quite clearly that er the public transport system is York i in Greater York is not good, and it erm is unlikely to be er improved by er the on the scale suggested I I would contend. But nevertheless, having said those, I would clearly emphasise the importance of those two elements of the criteria. Erm if a new settlement is proposed. Turning to the issue of the senior inspector has raised, as something like er get my proportions right, but something probably like three quarters of the York outer ring road is is trunked already. Clearly any proposal will have a major impact on the trunk road system. Similarly with the other likely locations, I know we're g not going into that, but virtually all of them will e inevitably feed onto the trunk network which does fulfil a dual function around York.
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you. Mr is this something new in addition to what's already been said?
[Roy Donson:] Well I'm
[Eric Barnett:] Or are you covering the same.
[Roy Donson:] Well I I I would express my support for Mr and for Mr on widening the scope erm to include because clearly national policy talks about public transport generally and not just rail. But just picking up on Mr 's point. In my experience, British Rail whilst wishing to encourage the use of of trains as they would, er are resistant to opening stations that just delay journey times. So whilst it's desirable to encourage the use of rail, I think in in in practice it's going to be er very difficult to achieve that and in therefore you should look at public transport in the round.
[Eric Barnett:] I note your critical comments about British Rail. Mr.
[Mr Wincup:] , D O E. Two points sir. Erm the County Council's phrase, an ability to link into the rail network, was geared originally to their proposal for a settlement of between eight hundred and a thousand dwellings. That has already been increased to fou fourteen hundred er you when you're making your recommendation may or may not come up with a recommendation for a somewhat larger settlement. Clearly the bigger the settlement, the more the greater the significance one might expect from the rail network in this context. Er the other aspect. Erm much has already been said about the role of P P Gs and the advice they contain. Er the draft P P G thirteen, for the moment merely reinforces the public transport points that are already made in P P G twelve. But there is further unpublished research on new settlements which we are awaiting at the moment, and it's our anticipation that when that is available and the Department considers it, it will update and er refine P P G thirteen. And our headquarters have have indicated to us that that might well include a refinement of the criteria which are presently in P P G three.
[Eric Barnett:] Mm. Well we shall wait and see.
[Mr Wincup:] wait and see.
[Eric Barnett:] Mr.
[M Courcier:] A very quick point sir. Erm I I would have thought it would be helpful that if criterion four could be worded in such a way that it it emphasised the need to maximize transport choice. And I think that must be the key. Obviously i i bus would be acceptable in certain circumstances, it's obviously better if one has the choice between bus and rail.
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you for that. C on that on that
[D Whittaker:] Weight.
[Eric Barnett:] What weight are you going to give it.... Somewhere near the top of the list?
[M Courcier:] Michael. I think that in the light of the emerging government guidance, that the transport choice must be given a very s substantial weight in the in that decision mak making process.
[Eric Barnett:] I in in the context of what Mr has just said, and I'm really talking about the way he's said it, but the way actually looked at the criteria, can I try to cos I would like to close on this particular question by one o'clock. Can I ask when we deal with the others that you look at them in that light. As a sort of principle against which a settlement will be judged. I don't really want to go over the grounds which you know you would seek to weigh different erm locations. We'll come back to that on Tuesday. What I'm looking for e effectively is a set of criteria which will promote best planning practise either at structure plan or local plan level, in order to judge the location of this settlement. So can we [clears throat] now move off four and look at five which relates to the need to er again I think maximize wight be a suitable word in here, er infrastructure. Particularly drainage and water supply.
[Mr P Davies:] All I'd say on five chairman is that this issue of infrastructure particularly sewerage, sewerage, foul water and water supply is a major issue in York and the location of the new settlement I think needs to be very closely assessed in terms of er of five. I think it's a very important criteria that we need to look at.
[D Whittaker:] I agree it's important, what I have no feel for, is whether it is something which helps to make a decision as to where the new settlement might go. What I think I'm looking for is some evidence that the severity of the infrastructure problems to which you refer actually varies from one district to another. If it is the same problem in all districts then it doesn't help anyone make a decision.
[Mr P Davies:] Well it's not chairman, and perhaps Mr has got some information I think that might help you on that.
[M Courcier:] Er yes, Malcolm, County Council. Certainly in the work that the Greater York er authorities did in preparing their proposals over the past er four or five years, er we have worked fairly closely with what was then the Yorkshire Water Authority and National Rivers Authorities on the questions of drainage erm and so forth which are our major problems around York. And there are certain areas around the city where a the provision of a new settlement is likely to create more severe environmental problems.
[Eric Barnett:] No I don't need to pursue that any further. Mr?
[speaker004:] Er John n, C P R E. Can I just make one suggest suggestion hopefully it's helpful. Er the reference to surface water presumably that's a reference to to flooding and the the need to avoid areas at risk from flooding. Erm I ask that as a point of clarification.
[Mr P Davies:] Yes chairman. The the conclusions of the National Rivers Authority erm and the the Water Authority was that er in general terms er the location of a new settlement could have a significant impact er on local land drainage. Erm and that that really needs to be carefully assessed as one moves towards some conclusions on where that new settlement ought to be.
[speaker004:] Can I just just Er is that something that perhaps should be explained in the explanatory memorandum with the discussion on this criterion in particular is quite brief....
[Mr P Davies:] Erm Peter, North Yorkshire, I think it's appropriately addressed there and I think there are so many elements of it that er I think you w you would end up with perhaps a very long explanatory section. I think the importance of the issue I think is fairly stated there.
[Eric Barnett:] I think I think we take it as it as it as it at its face value Mr. Mr
[Roy Donson:] Roy, House Builders Federation. I think in assessing this criteria chairman, you you've got to make a distinction between the N R A responsibilities and the Water Company responsibilities. Erm I I I would obviously take very seriously the N R A responsibilities but I think you've got to bear in mind there's within the water act, there's a thing called infrastructure charges
[Eric Barnett:] Yes.
[Roy Donson:] and and and and and and in fact the the provision of sewerage and er and and water supply are are are a matter of of er things which are done on demand and er are are covered by infrastructure charges. And and the shortage of er sewerage as such is not as su as such a criteria to on which to judge the provision of the new settlement because that's part and parcel of the infrastructure that would be provided.
[Eric Barnett:] Yes. Six. To avoid the best and most versatile agricultural land etcetera. Do we have any dissenting voices or comments on that, or is it acceptable.
[D Whittaker:] How important is it?
[Eric Barnett:] How importa
[Mr Brighton:] It's it's a very short comment erm
[Eric Barnett:] Yes, that's alright, go on.
[Mr Brighton:] And and but the only comment I'd like to make is that there was a suggestion in I think it was a that the necessity to protect agricultural land had diminished since the food from our own resources and government's policy. I would simply like to point out that the protection of the countryside and agricultural land for its own sake is the policy that should be er er applied in this case, and I just want to make that point. It it doesn't matter whether it's needed or not needed for food production.
[Mr P Davies:] Chairman, Peter, North Yorkshire. We have of course proposed a change to to this criterion which would effectively terminate the criterion after P P G seven. This was in response to requests from.
[Eric Barnett:] Well that's the one I'm reading here.
[D Whittaker:] Then Mr 's not
[Eric Barnett:] Sorry Mr 's yes. Well I I I mean I see six as being quite specific in relation to agricultural land instead of the more general philosophy erm which would probably appear in other parts of the structure plan policies. Can we move on to
[D Whittaker:] But
[Eric Barnett:] Sorry it's all yours.
[D Whittaker:] I appreciate you're trying to get on. Mr, if we have a criterion that says protect the countryside for its own sake, and a criterion from our discussion yesterday, and somewhere down here in relation to free standing, isn't our conclusion that nowhere is acceptable for a new settlement. Because by definition it is not related to an existing settlement, it is not in the greenbelt, it must be in the countryside. So the net effect of your suggested criterion is to get us rather further from a decision than even the chairman and I thought we might be at ten o'clock this morning.
[Mr Brighton:] Yeah, Joe. Well my my suggestion was not meant to be unhelpful er
[speaker004:] [LAUGHTER]
[Mr Brighton:] Erm no it it it y you know where I'm coming from on this, the suggestion is that Se
[D Whittaker:] [LAUGHTER] Yes []
[Mr Brighton:] that Selby is unconstrained in inverted commas. Erm I just don't I I I simply want to make the point that the protection of the countryside for its own sake is planning policy which must be brought within the of that criterion. But I do realize that it does er have locational implication which possibly we can deal with on Tuesday.
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you.
[M Courcier:] Michael. As worded I I think that criterion six is unrealistic. there's general acceptance and I note the D O E even accepted in their representations that any new settlement around Greater York will by the very nature of the character of Greater York, require taking some best and most versatile agricultural land. The object objective in six should be to minimize the loss of that land and to take the land in the l in the lower grade within the best and most versatile, rather than the higher grade. And that of course is exactly what P P G seven says.
[Eric Barnett:] Do you want to comment Mr?
[Mr P Davies:] Er just very briefly. I've just a quick discussion with Mr. Er we don't think that er that a new settlement would nec of necessity er include the the best and most versatile land.
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you.
[Mr P Davies:] Thank you.
[Mr Brighton:] Paul, planning partnership. And I concur with Mr on the point that he made. My concern about this is that I don't see how a view can be taken at a strategic level on something which ultimately can be only ascertained on a site specific basis. We cannot rely on the erm land... category maps which are produced by the Ministry of Agriculture, for areas I believe of less than forty hectares. Erm and and I welcome any response of the County Council as to how erm they would actually s use this criteria to make a to take a view on the acceptability of any location around the er York area.
[Mr P Davies:] I think we looked to Peter, North Yorkshire. We'd look to advice from the Ministry of Agriculture on this and their view to m their their willingness to make a positive contribution to the development of the e er assessment in terms of the er erm the availability and distribution of the the best and most versatile land. I think that'll be the right way to proceed.
[M Courcier:] Michael. I think it's a matter of fact that all the schemes I have seen have included an element of best and most versatile land. And then include schemes widely distributed throughout Greater York. The difference is in the proportion and type of best and most versatile. And that must be what should be expressed in the criterion.
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you, Mr?
[Mr Wincup:] . I think there's an opportunity here to bring in to six one of the considerations which occur in paragraph thirty three of P P G three, namely the reference in the fourth point to the importance of using erm derelict land, reclaiming derelict land. Er if that can arise. And one might [clears throat] one might say in six, erm perhaps not avoid but minimize the best and most versatile land in accordance with the provisions of P P G seven. And utilise where possible, derelict land.
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you for that.... Any more comments on this one or can we move to criterion seven? Which at the moment reads, be capable of being assimilated satisfactorily into the local landscape....
[D Whittaker:] Is this a strategic matter? What does it mean? Does it mean... that it is well landscaped, built of local materials, doesn't stick up like a sore thumb? If so, are those strategic matters? Or does it mean something else?...
[Mr P Davies:] I think chairman Peter, North Yorkshire. Er I think there's a need to to have a look at erm landscape character er across er Greater York on a consistent basis and er there are a number of ways that you could that you could look at this. I suspect there may well be areas in Greater York for example which are of high landscape value. Er but which because of their erm pattern of tree cover for example, may well be able to erm erm er accept er a new settlement which will blend reasonably erm er into the er landscape. Erm conversely that would suggest that erm you know, the one shouldn't automatically er be looking at the areas of of low l landscape value. Erm conversely I I think we would want to look at individual proposals as they as they came forward, and see what landscaping proposals they have and er how they intend to mitigate any perhaps adverse er landscape er implications. I think this is an extremely complicated er issue but I think it's on that needs to be looked at consistently across North Yorkshire.
[D Whittaker:] But the implication that Mr is that this is not a criterion which can effectively be operated at the strategic level. It's a local consideration.
[Mr P Davies:] Well I mean I think the issue revolves around whether landscape in the Greater York context, in the light of the specific proposal, is a is a strategic issue. And I think the need to protect the landscape on a settlement which we propose erm of fourteen hundred dwellings and round about three thousand three hundred people, I think is quite a significant and important issue for for Greater York.
[D Whittaker:] Yes I'm not I'm not saying that I don't think it's a an important consideration. What I'm trying to get a feel for is the level at which it is a consideration. I would be f very surprised if any of the district councils for example, would accept that a new settlement could be plonked down somewhere within their area, without consideration of landscape proposals.
[Mr P Davies:] Yes I agree.
[D Whittaker:] Thank you.
[Eric Barnett:] Mr
[Mr Brighton:] Paul. Paul,. You asked the question of of what this criterion erm could mean and I'd suggest that it means the following. That the new settlement should utilise the site of er low landscape and ecological value. The development should be capable of being assimilated into the natural environment. And the development should be able to show a positive landscape and ecology effect. Now I think the landscape issue and by landscape I mean er landscape and ecology, is capable of assessment at a strategic level, that's why we have er National Parks, A O N Bs and so on. And I think a similar exercise can be undertaken in the Greater York area. So in my view it is a relevant consideration at the structure plan level.
[M Courcier:] Michael. I tend to agree with on at least on the latter point. The the criterion can be applied strategically. Erm if there are areas la large areas around Greater Greater York particularly to the west of the city, which because of their flat open character would not be suitable for for a new settlement. There are other areas, particularly to I'd accept to either to the south or to the north east where a new settlement could more easily be integrated into the existing landscape framework. And therefore I think it can be applied in a strategic way and therefore is reasonable for inclusion within the structure plan.
[Eric Barnett:] Mr and then Mr.
[Mr Brooke:] Ian, Ryedale District. I would agree with the points made by Mr and Mr in that it can be a strategic issue. I'm not necessarily in agreement with their conclusions. I think that what is needed for the Greater York area is a comparative assessment of the landscape quality and that the criterion should indicate that the settlement should avoid areas of significant landscape value. What Mr seems to be directing is that the settlement should be directed to those areas which are at present have pleasant tree cover and things, which theoretically can assimilate a new settlement which in the context of the Vale of York, tend to be those areas which are th are of the better landscape quality. By including the words, avoiding areas of significant landscape value, you are by implication, directing it at areas which can be improved by for example a structure plan to increase or improve the landscape value of that area. And I would suggest that the that is putting it within the er remit of paragraph three three of P P G three that it offers the opportunity to er upgrade areas of low landscape value.
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you for that. Mr?
[Mr Wincup:] I certainly agree that the thoughts of paragraph thirty three should be brought into criterion seven. Erm and particularly the conclusion of paragraph thirty three that following the criteria they give, the net effect of a new settlement will either enhance the environment or cause only modest environmental impact. That depends where on starts from, what the landscape quality is to begin with, whether one can bring about an enhancement. And I therefore feel that it it is indeed both a strategic and a local consideration.
[Eric Barnett:] Yes yes. Yes I'd accept that. Any more comments on this one or can we move to eight? Which currently says avoid areas of archaeological and nature conservation interest.... [LAUGHTER] Mr
[Mr Brighton:] Joe. I don't regard this as a strategic issue. I think this is a a matter for erm local consideration.
[Eric Barnett:] Do you have any view on that one?
[Mr P Davies:] I don't think I'll go to the wall over eight, chairman.
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you.
[Mr Brighton:] I
[Eric Barnett:] Sorry. Mr n.
[Mr Brighton:] Sorry I can't agree with Mr erm planning policy guidance three quite clearly indicates that S S S I's for example are a strategic matter to be taken into account in locating new settlements.
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you.... Number nine. Be free standing and well removed from existing settlements, thereby minimizing any adverse impact on existing settlements. A comment I ha or a question I had was how far is well removed? Do you intend to try and define that.
[Mr P Davies:] I think we'd we'd want to look at it and I think various figures we've talked about certainly as officers, whether we ought to try and er quantify that in terms of distance. certainly I think er we'd be looking perhaps for a minimum of er er of one mile but I can't advise you on any level of agreement as to as to what any definition of it. I think the I think you will be talking about that sort of order.
[D Whittaker:] Is this a consideration which helps anybody to decide which district the new settlement should go in?... Much shaking of heads.... gentleman for.
[Eric Barnett:] Mr first.
[Mr Wincup:] With er this consideration in mind I er put forward erm to you the diagram of settlements round York. Because coalescence can be in my view a very important issue in deciding which sectors might well be the id375s1
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you. Er I I think I take Mr 's point that er you wouldn't go to well a mile it's really going to be horses for courses isn't it?
[Mr P Davies:] Yeah I think we need t I I think one really needs to look at this.
[Eric Barnett:] Yes.
[Mr P Davies:] Down on the ground.
[Eric Barnett:] Yes and not a strategic one. Or is it?
[Mr P Davies:] Well
[Eric Barnett:] In terms of determining location.
[Mr P Davies:] I think it's an important erm requi it should be an important requirement th the philosophy behind that that er that that argument should be pursued that it should be free standing.
[Eric Barnett:] Yeah. Thank you, Mr.
[speaker004:] Er thank you sir, Terry n, Selby District. Yes I was going to say, whilst it's not necessarily a strategic issue, there is a reference in the revise P P G three to the need to avoid coalescence. Which is a very similar wording to to the one used and if you do decide er to go forward with this criteria, perhaps erm there's scope to introduce the wording avoiding coalescence.
[Eric Barnett:] Yes.
[M Courcier:] Michael, very briefly. I think that this erm criterion nine relates to is is of the type of new settlement rather than helping select the general location. And I would my my general thoughts would be that it the word free standing should be actually in included within the preamble to the policy. And it be removed as a criterion. Cos it doesn't help help select a general location. Because almost all general locations round York could be could be fulfilled by that criterion.
[Eric Barnett:] Mhm. Thank you. Can I move on to ten which no doubt will excite comment from my left. Mr? [tape change]
[Roy Donson:] Roy, House Builders Federation. You anticipate me sir. Erm yes you you you'll know from my evidence that I have certain reservations about the detailed wording of this of this particular criteria. Er my main my main concern i i is really related to the implication within it that that literally every cost which is associated with a new settlement would have to be borne by the developer. So that literally means the developer will pay all the teachers that might be in a school, pay all the people to sweep the roads and a a and and everything else. They would expenses of that nature. That would seem to me to be contrary to government guidance and the wording needs tidying up to reflect that if that is not what is actually meant by the revision and by the wording of the policy. Erm a for that reason, I have in my evidence commended some alternative wording to you which is based upon erm a panel report for the Nottinghamshire structure plan who who considered the issue.
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you.
[D Whittaker:] Is this... a strategic matter?... I'm not saying question that this is not an important consideration, but does it help us decide where the new settlement should be?
[Eric Barnett:] Right.
[Mr P Davies:] Peter, North Yorkshire. Er I don't think it probably that it does decide help you decide where the location ought to be, but that having said that, I would not want to minimize in any way er the views of my authority er as to the importance erm of the look of contributions from the private sector. Erm obviously you've seen what Ro what Roy has put in and obviously you'll come to a view on the position.
[Eric Barnett:] Mr?
[speaker004:] Er John, C John, C P R E. I think erm er certainly the first half of the cri the criterion is is a strategic consideration. Erm but within that the the the phrase the troubles me is self contained. Erm particularly your question Mr chairman about er the principle against which such a criteria can be can be judged. Erm I think we established yesterday or current research suggests that certainly size of fourteen hundred people, no way can achieve self containment. Erm Mr in in his closing remarks yesterday afternoon defined a balanced and integrated community. What what we haven't yet defined is is what we mean by self containment. And and the degree to which that is consistent with the sustainable development argument that has been already been put. Erm er presumably this is something would have to be elaborated in the explanatory memorandum.
[D Whittaker:] Can you say why you think it would be it is a strategic criterion? If... we take a narrow interpretation at least for the moment of strategic means it helps decide where it should go.
[speaker004:] Well that that depends on on how we define self containment, because erm self containment has for example a transport implication. Erm if er the extent to which a new settlement would generate new trips and that that has a locational implication....
[Eric Barnett:] I'm not sure we follow that one.
[speaker004:] Well er as I say I think, er if if if the County Council are are insisting that any new settlement erm should be self contained, I think one would need to see what that definition is before we can be clear as to whether or not it has it has strategic implications. Cos that for example
[D Whittaker:] But is it not true that wherever it is, we're not going to build a wall around it, to keep them in.
[speaker004:] Mm. But but th
[D Whittaker:] And therefore wherever it is it is going to have transport implications in accordance with its size.
[speaker004:] But that but that's my point really, we it's not really defined what what is meant in this criteria by criteria
[D Whittaker:] But
[speaker004:] by self containment.
[D Whittaker:] If you accept that it doesn't matter where it is, it will have transport implications, we've already discussed a criterion erm about relating it to transport provision and facilities. How does this criterion help us to decide where it should go.
[speaker004:] Erm... well well er put like that erm put like that er I suppose it it doesn't if if one accepts that the the the traffic and transport erm case is ma is made elsewhere....
[Mr Brighton:] Paul Paul,. Th this criterion I think is what I would call an operational criteria, erm it defines effectively what's going into the new settlement. Erm I don't think it assists at all in terms of location and I think it is a strategic matter however in terms of erm the structure plan and would probably be best incorporated into policy H two in a revised form and I suggested. I believe inevitable later. Thank you.
[Eric Barnett:] Mr
[Roy Donson:] Erm thank you. Roy, House Builders Federation. I'd just like to I don't think this is a strategic matter in the in in the terms which you are now defining it and indeed the issue of self containment, my understanding is only the universe is self contained. Erm but er you'll notice from my wording er revised wording of the policy, I seek to define the terms of that self containment by using the words, and so the District Council will seek to secure land for.
[Eric Barnett:] Mr.
[R Thomas:] David, York City Council. Just a brief comment. Erm you'll not be surprised to hear discussing yesterday, on the issue of self containment, erm I regard this this criteria and.
[Eric Barnett:] Would you say that again.
[R Thomas:] If if if you accepted if you were to accept the the the issue of self containment we discussed yesterday, about the transportation implications of a new settlement of this size. Then the inclusion of the word self contained in this criteria within those terms rule out all proposals.
[D Whittaker:] You would like high priority therefore attached to
[speaker004:] [LAUGHTER]
[Eric Barnett:] Yes I I remember we went down a very long cul-de-sac at one stage on self containment didn't we. I think we might need to look at that one very carefully to see whether it adds anything to the er criteria. Mr.
[Mr Wincup:] Wincup, D O E. Just a very brief point sir. Th don't want to extend the the d debate on this, just to point out that paragraphs thirty five and thirty seven, P P G three, both related to local plan policies and not to structure plan.
[Eric Barnett:] Yes. Thank you. Do you all feel as though you've had... your say on that? Mr, were you going to rephrase that?
[speaker004:] Er no sir, I'm waiting for the next item. [LAUGHTER]
[Eric Barnett:] Lead on.
[speaker004:] Er Terry, Selby District. Er this i matter er item twelve. I thought I'd better get in here first before Mr, and er Michael start hurling pieces of coal at each other. [LAUGHTER] Erm I'll be I'll be very brief because I set out Selby District's views in in my written subm submission, but basically, strict interpretation of of this particular criterion, would clearly eliminate substantial parts of Selby District which is affected by the development of the coal field. Now the coal field is a clearly very complex issue, but basically it it is now becoming clearer that er the life of the coalfields will not be as long as originally envisaged. In fact substantial parts of it will be er will not extend beyond the end of the the plan period. And al already there are significant areas of that have actually been worked out. So that that the constraint wouldn't apply in in those areas anyway. Er at the very least I wish to see the criteria amended erm and expressed in terms of minimizing impact rather er avoiding completely.
[Eric Barnett:] Yes I I presume there must be some form of safeguarding areas laid down by British Coal. And equally I presume you've also got some form of mineral protection zones or aren't they relevant in the context of the area of search.
[Mr P Davies:] I I don't th
[Eric Barnett:] in terms of and gravel resources or whatever.
[M Courcier:] Er Malcolm, County Council. Yes
[Eric Barnett:] I just can't get to the reason why why you have th this criteria in.
[M Courcier:] Well as you know, we have very substantial planning permission for the Selby coalfield which covers
[Eric Barnett:] Yeah. Mm.
[M Courcier:] part of the area that we would be looking at for the new settlement. And I think it is very important if we take into account the the potential conflict. Now that does not entirely rule out any possibility of the new settlement within the Selby area, as er Mr has implied. That has never been the County Council's interpretation of the of the relationship between er this criteria and the Selby coalfield. Nevertheless it is a very clear strategic matter which must be included in my view in the in the criteria included in the structure plan.
[Eric Barnett:] Mr?
[Mr Brighton:] Paul, planning partnership. The effect of the Selby coalfield erm is felt on specific areas of land. And as er Mr has pointed out, er some parts of the district are not affected at all by this issue, other areas have already been worked out. And doubtless other areas will be worked out before there is a need to start on site. The subsidence which occurs as a result of the mining in any event is very limited and has been able to be taken into account quite adequately on other developments within the Selby District. And because this issue is clearly so site related, it seems to me it cannot possibly be looked at at a strategic level. And the appropriate way in which this matter should be considered is through the local plan when you are considering a much er more limited range of possible sites for the new settlement. And for that reason I believe erm it should be deleted from the locational criteria in terms of the area of search around Greater York.
[Eric Barnett:] Can we?
[M Courcier:] Michael Michael. I I consider that that this does assist in general location. Quite ob quite obviously cos I say so in my evidence. Erm it is a the the impact of the new settlement upon the worki the workings of Selby coalfield are recognized by British Coal. British Coal haven't made their position quite clear. They consider that the new settlement should shouldn't be within the wi within areas which would affect their future workings. It's a matter obviously it's a matter of weight to be given to it. But I I think that it it is a matter which is legitimately it should be legitimately included within the the structure plan as an important factor. Now obviously the weight we can we can debate on Tuesday.
[Eric Barnett:] Mr? No? No?
[Mr Brighton:] If I could just make one further comment please, Paul, planning partnership. The existence of the Selby Coalfield has not precluded substantial development within Selby itself. Indeed British Coal erm have current proposals to undermine Selby town itself. And for that reason I don't believe this is really any form of constraint on new development which could obviously be built with er appropriate foundations to absorb the very slight movement that takes place when undermining occurs.
[Mr P Davies:] Peter, North Yorkshire. [clears throat] I I really don't want to make too much of this chairman. You you're aware of paragraph thirty one of er M P G one. There has been some concern expressed by British Coal on this issue. Er and it may well be as Mr has suggested that when we look at it it is not a problem. But I think in fairness to erm complete the picture shall we say, I really think we ought to er we ought to be looking at it. But it may well be as Mr suggested that er there's l there's gonna be very little difficulty there.
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you.... Any more comments on that one? We're running slightly behind time but we're doing very well. Does anyone have any additional criteria, they wish to add. No?
[Mr Brighton:] Can I can I just raise a question er to r to clarify the point before I answer your question that I are am I are we to assume that in response to Mr, erm it's on the record that there's a er a request to add, clear expression of local preference I by local planning authorities?
[Eric Barnett:] That's his request yes.
[Mr Brighton:] In that case I don't need to repeat it. Thank you....
[Eric Barnett:] Mr.
[Mr Wincup:] I think that one point Er. I think one point is not allowed for in the criteria and that it is of relevance. If the new if the new settlement proves successful, it will have an impetus all its own and therefore it will not come to a full stop in two thousand and six. There will be a natural tendency for expansion to occur thereafter. Therefore in considering the degree to which any er area can assimilate a new settlement, the size which it must reach subsequent to two thousand and six, should be considered in addition to the size it expected to reach by that date.
[Eric Barnett:] A valid point Mr, yes.
[D Whittaker:] [LAUGHTER]
[Eric Barnett:] I'm not sure sure how we could build it into the criteria of But it's it's a point which would obviously have to be borne in mind in terms of the str you know, the planning process.
[Mr P Davies:] I think Peter, North Yorkshire. I think we talked about this yesterday, I think and certainly my view was that th s that a further increment onto er a new settlement would be one of the options. Erm of course two thousand and six is a consideration that we ought to look at once a new settlement location's identified. Er I think I share your view there's some difficulty as to how we would actually accommodate in er in the policy.
[D Whittaker:] The implication of that could be one of two ways. Either, that long term flexibility beyond two thousand and six is a relevant consideration, or it is not. And I've lost the second one. It obviously wasn't important.
[Eric Barnett:] It's getting late.
[Mr P Davies:] Well
[D Whittaker:] Ah yes, the second point was, is that a consideration which is determines location in strategic terms?
[Mr P Davies:] Erm I think I'd support the first point that we we're obviously er all in favour well the County Council is certainly in favour of flexibility in terms of addressing the post two thousand er six scenario. One of those options would be a further increment on the existing erm new settlement. Erm I'm not too sure on the second point. My tired brain is trying to work out a response which it's failing to do at the moment. So I don't think I can help you too much on the second one.
[Eric Barnett:] But in fact it could be looked at in the light of criterion nine, which is free standing, well removed etcetera
[Mr P Davies:] Yeah.
[Eric Barnett:] thereby minimizing any adverse impact.
[Mr P Davies:] Yeah. Mm. Whether it would still continue to be free standing and well removed in terms of a second er second increment.
[Eric Barnett:] Mr.
[Mr Wincup:] , D O E. Er on Mr 's point about the preferences of the district councils sir. While that's clearly the most important consideration for each of the districts over the next few months, while the selection process is going on, er bearing in mind what's said in P P G three, we regard that as axiomatic and I I find it inconceivable that the the department would allow any new settlement to proceed nowadays without the agreement of the district council. If that is so, I would then say that by the time you get to the modification stage and the County Council has published a proposal for the general location, I therefore think at that stage the need for the criterion has disappeared, so it may be that the approved policy will not need to contain such criteria.
[Eric Barnett:] Point taken. Mr
[Mr Brighton:] Paul, planning partnership. Erm I have one other criteria which I would suggest you'd need to take into account when considering the general location of the new settlement around York and that is to the need to what I term in my er planning submission, to plan for success. Erm in my view, it's crucial that the selection of a general location should be overwhelmed by these technical considerations. It's very important in my view er because the new settlement will be primarily dependant on private sector funding which in itself is dependant on the uplift in land values, erm that the area should be one in which developers wish to build. And that obviously creates the uplift in land values which finances the social structure that would be set in terms of the operational criteria for the new settlement. So I think there is a need to plan for a location where this new settlement is going to be successful, recognizing that failure to attract appropriate er private sector interest will mean poor quality design and social provision which will obviously detract from the new settlement as a place to live and also undermine its role in terms of the Greater York area. Now we have taken advice from several chartered surveyors and indeed the developer of the existing Clifton Moor industrial estate on this issue. And their very clear view based on their long and practical experience of the Greater York development market, is that a location South South West of York is more likely to... be a successful location particularly for the employment component of the new settlement, than any other sector of York. And I would ask you to have regard to that erm when you look at the technical criteria which we've spent the last couple of hours looking at.
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you very much, we will come back to that on Tuesday morning. Er thanks for your patience. Can I remind you that we'll be looking at er two D on Tue Tuesday morning. That'll be starting at ten o'clock. We'll have to conclude at one because the we have another issue in the afternoon. Erm if we overrun on Tuesday morning, then we have spare time in our programme for a week day. Erm I just put you on notice about that. I would hope that we might be able to arrange it but obviously if it is er out of the question, then we'd have to try to rearrange it some other time. But I hope it might be a spur to some positive discussion, Tuesday morning er and terminating absolutely at one o'clock. Yeah. The alternative of course is that we could reconvene later on Tuesday, if the hall is available. But er let us see how we go Tuesday morning. To put you on your mettle. And can I remind the district planning officers I am looking for a positive contribution from you on Tuesday.
[M Courcier:] Michael Michael, to to assist the panel, after we received 's paper on on on the erm coal workings in Selby we have act we faxed that over to British Coal for their comments. I'm now just got their comments now, and it may be helpful if I enclose a copy to er whoever may may wish to have a copy to be looked at over the weekend.
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you The the the good news for you the good news for you is that if we erm run out of time on Tuesday morning, we can have the hall all night, Tuesday night.
[speaker004:] [LAUGHTER]
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you very much, have a good weekend. [recording ends]