[speaker001:] [clears throat]
[Mr E Barnett:] Can we, can we start? Hope we haven't spoilt your you haven't spoilt lunch by doing the statistical check.
[speaker001:] No.
[Mr E Barnett:] No, thank you. Erm first of all can I put the county on notice to er respond later on this afternoon to the thesis expanded by Professor Lock that er it might be tenable to start calculating employment land requirements based on numbers of employed or numbers in employment or desired ai or employment levels to be aimed at, er and coupled with that, is there anything in the figures which they have produced in either their submission or and and its appendices which actually might form a basis for that sort of calculation? It's a view, I'm not necessarily asking you to do any further statistical work but I would like a view on it, whether it's tenable or not. And then we go back to the point which Mr Cunnane wanted to raise and they've had their lunchtime discussions, see whether you've come to a some form of agreement or resolution on that. [clears throat]
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] We have.
[Mr E Barnett:] You have? Right, would you like to start on that then?
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] Right.
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Mr E Barnett:] Whil whilst whilst you're thinking about it [clears throat] I would also suggest that er well ask for any other comments anybody may wish to raise on Selby itself. Erm anything else that needs to be added? Er and if not we would move to discuss Harrogate. [clears throat] Professor Lock.
[Professor David Lock:] Er David Lock sir. One matter rose over erm in discussion over lunch which if we could get a clarification on it might help the remainder of the day. Erm it's about the relationship between policy I five erm on industry and the policy I fifteen for erm central area offices and so on. It was erm said this morning early on in an exchange in the discussion that erm
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Professor David Lock:] these two things were separate.
[Mr E Barnett:] I twelve you mean?
[Professor David Lock:] I'm sorry
[Mr E Barnett:] I twelve yes.
[Professor David Lock:] I beg your pardon I beg your pardon twelve, these two things were separate you know one could be added to the other in looking an as it were at the total employment requirement. Th that was what was said. Going through it at lunchtime we wondered if that really is what was meant, it's terribly important one way or the other. Would it be possible to
[Mr E Barnett:] Well you'd you'd like clarification on that from the county?
[Miss D Whittaker:] Yeah. That was not my understanding Professor Lock. My understanding was that any provision made in accordance with I twelve did not count towards I five
[speaker001:] I five
[Miss D Whittaker:] provision.
[Professor David Lock:] Did not count. Is that different to what I've just asked, sorry?
[Miss D Whittaker:] I think so.
[Professor David Lock:] Right. Let's, can we find out.
[Mr E Barnett:] Well can I say I, my interpretation of it, we're not quite looking at the same sort of horse.
[Professor David Lock:] Right.
[Mr E Barnett:] But, Mr Williamson would you care to comment on the difference between I five and I, well what is the purpose of I twelve compared with the purpose of I five? Mr Potter.
[Mr David Potter:] David Potter, North Yorkshire County Council. The essential difference i between I twelve and I five is that I twelve in the past has dealt with central area office developments
[speaker001:] Mhm.
[Mr David Potter:] erm and some service development. Now because of the changes to the use classes order and the B one office category, it's not always clear what is central area offices, what is B one offices on industrial estates, so what we've tried to do in terms of I five, I five has always essentially been there to deal with industrial development,
[speaker001:] Yeah.
[Mr David Potter:] we've tried to incorporate an element of B one office within that provision but we feel it's not feasible to monitor effectively erm I twelve type office development within central areas.
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Mr E Barnett:] The old I twelve which you have proposed altering and this is for Professor Lock's benefit, actually had specific er floor-space figures set against York, Scarborough and Harrogate did it not?
[Mr David Potter:] It did yes.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes. Yeah. And those have now been are proposed to be deleted from this
[Mr David Potter:] They are.
[Mr E Barnett:] modification or this change to the policy.
[Miss D Whittaker:] But anything done I twelve does not take up any part of I five, as I understand it.
[Mr David Potter:] That's correct.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes. Does that clarify?
[Miss D Whittaker:] So
[Mr E Barnett:] Does that clarify?
[Mr David Potter:] That is what I heard sir, yes.
[Miss D Whittaker:] So there is no limit on B one use in central areas, in or adjacent to town centres to use the definition use in I twelve. There is however some provision un-quantified for B one use in I five.
[speaker001:] I five.
[Professor David Lock:] The sorry David Lock again. So the the that is what I heard this morning erm very grateful erm erm for your patience. It it does, it is a terribly material
[speaker001:] Mhm.
[Professor David Lock:] erm clarification because for people like me that are interested in the total provision of employment land in the district, erm what I'm hearing for example in the case of Harrogate is that there is an allocation of employment land of of sixty hectares plus the Greater York allocation. It means that any office development or commercial [clears throat] of this kind in this I twelve policy that was to occur in Harrogate would not be counted off the sixty hectares of em erm of I five allocation, it would be in addition to it, and that may be a very important breakthrough for us.
[Mr E Barnett:] Well yes. No doubt you'll want to return to that.
[Professor David Lock:] Thank you very much. I'm most grateful sir.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes.
[Miss D Whittaker:] But the critical thing with I twelve as the policy's currently drafted is that it is location specific. It is not other than in town centres, market towns and local commercial centres.
[speaker001:] Mm.
[Miss D Whittaker:] There is no such restriction on any I five provision.
[Professor David Lock:] It would mean then erm that a district council could take its allocation under I five in its local plan, distribute it everywhere except in the town centre
[Miss D Whittaker:] Not necessarily.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Professor David Lock:] right. It could put some in the town centre or it could or it need not.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Mm.
[speaker001:] Mhm.
[Professor David Lock:] That could be determined against the local plan. If it chose to put it all outside the town centre, what then subsequently occurred in the town centre under I twelve would not be damaging its allocation against the structure plan policy outside the town centre. I it looks like there's a lot of freedom in there at the local level which is of interest.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Yes.
[Mr E Barnett:] You are you are getting affirmative
[Professor David Lock:] I'm getting nods aren't I sir, and I'm very grateful for that.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes, yes, yes, yes. Mr Cunnane?
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] Joe Cunnane, J C Cunnane Associates. Yes the point that I wanted to raise on the table we have resolved. It was, I didn't erm believe that the picture of constraint that was painted in appendix two was quite as bad as it looked. And we have discussed the matter with erm Selby officers and the following is the result of those discussions. What we've done is we've taken out of the table what is unlikely to happen, no not unlikely, er I'll rephrase that, what is agreed will not come forward in in the structure plan period, the roll forward
[Mr E Barnett:] Mhm.
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] period. And they are as follows, Selby Road Barlby, one point three hectares, it's about erm seventh from the top of the list,
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes I've got it.
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] yeah, and the next one Olympia Mills Barlby. Then moving down the table to outstanding planning consents, Whelan Road, Eggborough, three point three hectares. And at the very bottom of the table Naburn hospital, twenty point eight nine hectares.
[Mr E Barnett:] So that's about forty hectares in total is it?
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] It's thir thirty two point six hectares in total
[Mr E Barnett:] Sorry.
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] of im of I five land.
[speaker001:] Did you say thirty?
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] I'll tell you, I I have a, if I finish the sentence it may explain. In the Naburn hospital allocation it's, there is eleven H A for I five land and then there's a remaining allocation for retail
[Mr E Barnett:] Yeah, yes.
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] So if you count only the I five land, you get a figure of thirty two point six hectares
[Mr E Barnett:] Mhm.
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] which needs to be deducted from the hundred and ten point two seven... which gives you a re a possible alloca a possible amount of land to come forward in the structure plan period of seventy seven point six seven, off which to make the figures round properly you need to take another ten, for the retail element if that became I five land which could theoretically give you a figure of sixty seven point six seven.... Does that make sense?
[Mr E Barnett:] It might [clears throat] it would be helpful actually if this could be written down for us. Quite happy to have it in manuscript.
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] Mm. Right. Yeah we'll do that.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you.
[speaker001:] Mr
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr Heselton.
[Mr Terry Heselton:] Thank you sir, Terry Heselton, Selby District. I'm I'm not wishing to er to dispute what er Mr Cunnane's just said er, I hope you won't think I'm necessarily splitting hairs but
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Mr Terry Heselton:] er we we've we've agreed the table on on the base basis of erm information best information available a at the moment but but equally I wouldn't wish it to be seen th that I am in any way attempting to prejudge the outcome of er local plan studies, erm so the information that I've agreed with with Mr C Cunnane is basically an attempt to clarify the tabulation fo er in
[Mr E Barnett:] Yeah.
[Mr Terry Heselton:] terms of what is most likely to happen on the basis of the information available.
[Mr E Barnett:] I mean i what what we're looking for is is the overall figure of this revised assessment of land availability for I five uses in the plan period, and your residue figure would be the one which would not likely to be made available before the year two thousand and six. Are you happy with that?
[Mr Terry Heselton:] Yes sir.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you. Now anyone else want to make a contribution on Selby... and then we can move to Harrogate?... Sorry, yes. Come on it's alright. [LAUGHTER]
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] Final contr final contribution on Selby if I may please. I just need to draw attention to the fact that the erm Selby have given us a a very clear explanation of their unemployment problems and the difficulties they're facing and erm their th th their solution being er the allocations that they're suggesting which obviously I don't agree with. But I just I simply need to point out that these I five allocations are targeted at twenty eight percent of the workforce.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mhm.
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] Erm the remaining seventy two percent are entirely separate from this and obviously that's a a very important point to bear in mind when you consider the level of allocation that's been made first of all, and secondly the likelihood that if that is successful, first of all if it's approved, if it's recommended by the panel and eventually taken on by the county, and secondly if happens, then it is likely that it will result in skewing of the workforce even more towards the manufacturing sector of the economy and would in our view be contrary to the aim of diversification of the economic base.
[Miss D Whittaker:] I don't understand that Mr Cunnane... Can you first of all explain please why you say it's targeted towards twenty eight percent of the workforce?
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] Be because the I five policy is aimed at a specific area of the workforce, it's not it's not across the full spectrum. For example it omits retail services
[Mr E Barnett:] Mm.
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] erm all other types of employment other than I five type employment.
[Miss D Whittaker:] But I five includes business use, class B one.
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] It includes an element of business use which is likely to end up in er industrial estates which is not the full spectrum of business use, back to the point I twelve er is the main generator of business use employment as I understand it.
[Miss D Whittaker:] It could include any B one use?
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] Yes.... But the
[Miss D Whittaker:] I don't understand therefore how you can ex say that it's targeted to primarily to manufacturing.
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] Because the B one use that's that is planned for within that allocation is a type of B one which is likely to locate on an industrial estate er to use the the term. It's not the full spectrum of B one use. The reason that that B one insertion has been made is to cope with the use classes order change.
[Miss D Whittaker:] I don't think I can accept that it's targeted towards industrial estates, it does not preclude office style campus development being included within it.
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] Yes I I would accept that. But the general point remains that it is to it is targeted towards a particular sector of the workforce. it omits town centre office, it omits retail, it omits leisure, all the other types of employment generation that can take place.
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Miss D Whittaker:] I think we can agree it omits leisure, shopping,
[Mr E Barnett:] Education.
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] Lo local government administration
[Miss D Whittaker:] No it does not o omit local government administration.
[speaker001:] Mm.
[Miss D Whittaker:] It'd be perfectly proper if there were new local government offices to be built for them to be located on an I five site.
[Mr E Barnett:] I can cite you a perfectly good example of that.
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] Well that's specifically excluded from the er calculation. If you look into the calculations you'll find they are specifically excluded.
[Miss D Whittaker:] The... I wasn't talking about what were included in the calculations, what I was talking about and we may be at cross purposes for that reason is what the policy provides for.
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] It's it's probably easier to say what it doesn't provide for. Erm, it as I say it doesn't provide for the the uses we've just discussed and in my, I don't want to get too entangled in the statistics of it, the main point I want to make is that
[Mr E Barnett:] Mm.
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] it is targeted at a s at a at a sector of the workforce, it is not the whole workforce of Selby by any means.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mm.
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] It is
[Mr E Barnett:] But that applies to any of the districts?
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] Yes.
[Mr E Barnett:] Doesn't it? Yeah.
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] I accept that, but none of the other districts are g are are making the point that's Selby's making, that the level of unemployment that they are encountering across the economy, not necessarily just in this sector of the economy, justifies the doubling of the of the of the allocation put forward.
[Mr E Barnett:] But part of their argument as I see it is that they are trying to seek to minimize the impact er in terms of unemployment levels by shifting the structure er and trying to well possibly counter the effects of a fallout in the primary sector.
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] Yes I accept that.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mm.
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] But it doesn't it doesn't take from the point that I made that it is i i the allocation they're seeking is aimed at a very specific sector of the employment base.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yeah, well yeah.
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] That the Senior Inspector doesn't accept that.
[Miss D Whittaker:] No I cannot accept that. It includes all types of industry and business use as d the latter is defined by class B one
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] I'll I'll accept that.
[Miss D Whittaker:] which includes light industry.
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] Yeah.
[Miss D Whittaker:] It is not therefore targeted towards manufacturing. Any more than it is targeted towards high-tech, R and D, office headquarters or any other type of office development except that which is and as I said in response to the point Professor Lock was making, it does not include town centre type
[speaker001:] Mm.
[Miss D Whittaker:] uses. There is nothing in it which precludes town centre type uses.
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] Well i if it assists, I'll omit the use of any kinds of labels of manufacturing or offices
[Mr E Barnett:] Mm.
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] or anything like that and I will make the point that it is targeted at a sector of the economy and the workforce, it is not the whole economy and not the whole workforce.
[Mr E Barnett:] I think the point you were trying to make is it it's a relative sorry no I shouldn't say relatively small, but it's a proportion of the workforce which is somewhat less than fifty percent.
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] Yes.
[Miss D Whittaker:] I can't accept that.
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] But are you
[Mr E Barnett:] It's difficult it's difficult
[Miss D Whittaker:] No.
[Mr E Barnett:] It's difficult to put figures on that you see, you can't do it.
[Miss D Whittaker:] I accept that it precludes class A development. It does not in my view exclude any B class development.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mm.
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] I accept that.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yeah.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Then it is not targeted towards any sector of the workforce. Is it?
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] Well i by definition it must be if it excludes all A classes for example.
[Miss D Whittaker:] It inc excludes retail development.
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] Yes. Leisure development,
[Miss D Whittaker:] Yes.
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] As the chairman said education, transport
[Miss D Whittaker:] Yes. Yes.
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] I d I d
[Miss D Whittaker:] Not except it does not i preclude exclude B eight uses.
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] No.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Warehousing.
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] No I I well I've accepted it includes
[Mr E Barnett:] Mm.
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] all B uses. But as I say I don't necessarily want to get involved in too much of the detail of the statistics of it, I simply want to make the overall point that we've been told that there are three thousand unemployed. It's an emotional phrase okay. There are three thousand unemployed in Selby. Selby has has a particular problem, its its economy is narrowly focused, it suffers high unemployment. The point I make is that the the allocations that we are making are not going to solve the problem across the full spectrum of the economy, they are targeted.
[Mr E Barnett:] I think we might well we could be in a cul-de-sac here or a discussion which er could cease to bear any fruit very rapidly.
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Mr E Barnett:] Could we er
[Miss D Whittaker:] Are you s can we j ask Mr Cunnane is he suggesting that I five definition the second line of the policy should be widened?
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] No I'm not.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Thank you.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you. Mr Heselton.
[Mr Terry Heselton:] Er thank you sir, Terry Heselton Selby District. Erm [clears throat]. In in view in the light of what you've just said I'm not sure whether I wanna get er too involved.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Mr Terry Heselton:] certainly not in the er in the statistical element. C can I just clarify erm, what I think Mr Cunnane w was saying then through through you i if you like. The the twenty
[Mr E Barnett:] What do you mean if I like?
[Mr Terry Heselton:] eight percent erm the two hundred and fifty hectare er two hundred and fifty hectares is needed for twenty eight percent of
[Mr E Barnett:] I was
[Mr Terry Heselton:] the of the workforce.
[Mr E Barnett:] I was trying to get away from percentages and I was trying not to pursue the thing any further.
[Mr Terry Heselton:] Well I'll go along with that, sir.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you. [whispering] Do you want to pursue it any further? []
[Miss D Whittaker:] Only to the extent of saying
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Miss D Whittaker:] given that those that are employed today cannot be guaranteed to be em [cough] to be employed tomorrow and that the three thousand in essence comprises of a constantly changing group of people, I don't see how anyone can argue that future employment provision is geared towards anybody. It's geared towards us all surely. Even inspector work.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Mr E Barnett:] But you don't m I won't say it.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Mr E Barnett:] Can we move to Harrogate? Mr Allenby can I ask you to pick up your submission then follow on with er Professor Lock.
[Mr David Allenby:] Thank you chairman. Er David Allenby, Harrogate Borough Council. I'll be very brief
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Mr David Allenby:] it's all set down in my statement. Er basically Harrogate's position is that it supports the level of employment land proposed in policy I five, and that's er a total allocation of ninety hectares. Erm however we would wish to see that policy complemented by the inclusion of the strategic exceptions policy erm and we know that I know that's to be discussed tomorrow but I will mention now that I think it would have been much more useful to the discussion if we'd have been able to discuss the strategic sites issue as part of this debate. We were we were not looking for an exception to policy E two we were looking for a policy which complements erm I five. Anyway I'll I'll not say any more about that. The total allocation of ninety hectares fo for Harrogate comprises er two thirty hectares Greater York, sixty hectares for the rest of the district. I've already said this morning that the thirty hectares for Greater York really reflects the availability of the site which is already committed. The sixty hectares provision for the rest of the district closely erm relates both to both methods erm of the forecasting erm that the County Council have done and the the forecast on on the basis of past rates and economic activity, and it's our view that erm the the level of sixty hectares is reasonable in relation to both those methodologies. Anything less than sixty hectares would be unrealistic and it certainly won't allow us any flexibility at all to allocate erm sufficient land as we see it to meet the needs of the resident population, and there would in fact be a shortfall er of employment land provision in our view towards the end of the plan period. Er perhaps more importantly,i it wouldn't meet the advice of P P G four that provision should be realistic er a realistic reflection of the needs of business er and that there should be a range in choice of sites to meet
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Mr David Allenby:] the varying needs of business and to facilitate competition. Having said that, we're not seeking an higher allocation under I five either er because in general terms, we we don't feel it's necessary to make further provision in and around main settlements. Erm having said that, I I will mention briefly again the strategic sites issue and we do feel that there should be additional flexibility through that sort of policy to allow for er the possibility of different types of developments to come forward. Er we do hold the view that the sixty hectares is sufficient on the on the basis that there is a degree of flexibility within the structure plan provision, er and that er flexibility should allow us erm in special circumstances for example to compensate for the loss of existing major employment erm sites, erm to make additional provision over and above that. We already have confirmation from the County Council that there is an element of flexibility within er I five. I note in circumstances where th there was to be the loss of a major employment site to other uses, then er additional provision could be made. I don't really want to make any more
[Mr E Barnett:] Mhm.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Can I interpret what you've just said as erm... representing in effect an aim on the part of the County Council to secure in Harrogate the nineteen ninety one area of employment land plus ninety hectares in two thousand and six?
[Mr David Allenby:] Yes tha that's right yes. In general terms.
[Miss D Whittaker:] So if you lost something the ninety would increase accordingly?
[Mr David Allenby:] Yes er the er David Allenby, Harrogate Borough Council. Yes I think that would apply where there was a a major or significant loss of employment land. We're not talking about small sites which go from employment use
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Mr David Allenby:] to another use, we're talking about something much more significant than that. That's not been defined erm and it will be a matter of judgement. There are sites in Harrogate that erm could be lost to employment use and that we'd want to make compensating provision for those sites over and above the ninety hectares.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Thank you.
[Mr E Barnett:] Professor Lock and then Mr Laycock.
[Professor David Lock:] David Lock sir [clears throat] excuse me. [clears throat] David Lock. I think I could be a lot lot shorter than it might have been thought was necessary because things have been made, a lot of furniture has be has been moved today er already. Erm we sir had objected to the erm er allocation proposed for of employment land under I five er to Harrogate, er believing that it should have been even more than
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Professor David Lock:] the erm er raised figure of sixty hectares outside Greater York er that is in currently before you before us all. Erm the reasons that we were er anxious about this allocation to Harrogate erm stemmed from the point that I think somebody should make on this occasion and that is that it does seem there are two local authorities within North Yorkshire that have particularly distinguished er issues to deal with on employment. One is Selby which we've just spent the morning discussing and for very very different reasons the other is Harrogate. Erm Harrogate er is a borough that's enjoyed an enormous er growth in prosperity and economic activity during the erm exciting er yuppie years of Mrs Thatcher the mid eighties and erm er was indeed one of the I think one of the most wealthy boroughs, one of the highest economic activity rate levels, the Civic Society tell us in their papers it was paying the highest rates and all these sort of indicators, but with as so much of that period it turned out to be er a bubble and a chimera and er the borough has experienced some very severe erm er closures in recent years. And so whilst the popular perception of Harrogate will remain of it as being a very prosperous and pretty borough er with everything going for it, in fact there's a very serious unemployment problem of structural er magnitude and we felt that the county structure plan had not acknowledged this erm special difficulty that Harrogate was facing, and had merely applied as we heard this morning the standard formula as it were to Harrogate, as it had to all the other local authority areas in the county. And this application of standard formula upset Selby for reasons we heard this morning, and it upsel set us because it didn't seem to be taking the real situation into account. In particular erm we were worried that the county just had not acknowledged that one of the phenomena of the nineteen eighties had been that much of the industrial land in the borough of Harrogate converted to B one office use. Erm very extensive business park development took place, land values on these industrial areas rose accordingly and all manufacturing uses were either er destabilized because their land values now became greater than the businesses that were on them, or new manufacturing plant simply could not acquire the land at affordable prices because there were always people willing to buy it for B one. This was a very strong phenomenon in Harrogate and we felt the erm the county had not er understood that matter seriously enough. Secondly we were erm concerned that the county had not erm thought properly about employment densities, erm they have backed away from using employment density today as a significant calculator, but I hope you've noticed sir that the erm the county's mind set on employment densities is that whereas in the last structure plan they were working off a density, average density of thirty four workers for hectare. Erm in this round they are er working off a higher figure of forty three. Happens to be a reversion of the two numbers which is neat.
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Professor David Lock:] Whereas all the trends erm I would submit, sir in in economic activity, are suggesting that employ average employment levels and densities are falling, partly because of improved working conditions that workers require and also because of er modern processes and site layouts er have lower densities, all of which suggests that depression on the number of workers per hectare rather than an increase which is where the county's head is at. Thirdly we felt the county had not understood enough of the pattern of erm impending relocations within Harrogate Borough Council. Erm the economic development unit of the borough, Mr Allenby, should know more about it than me, but they have done studies of the firms in Harrogate that can be expected to seek relocation within the borough as they sort themselves out over the next five years, and erm their own calculations for the next five years is more than the county's whole calculation for the next fifteen years, which suggested to us again that there was a problem about the understanding that the county had on the matter of relocations within Harrogate compared with what was going on locally. And erm, the other aspect, the last aspect that gave us er anxiety was something I touched on this morning when I joined in at the end of the Selby discussion. And that is the erm absence of understanding it seems to us from the County Planning Department of the way the actual market works, and of the need for a local authority area erm in seeking to obtain employment for its people, the need for that area to be able to offer a variety of er employment land both in quality, size and location. This is an important point sir because there is a drift of much government policy towards the reuse of derelict urban land and the lady on my right here was making this point this morning to you. Erm as desirable as that objective is, the fact of the matter is that inward investors, given the choice of the derelict industrial site in a town centre in North Yorkshire or an out of town motorway junction site to exaggerate the difference, in another part of the country is as likely as not to choose the other place. Now this means that erm putting it in its simplest way that for any of the districts in North Yorkshire and for Harrogate and if I may presume to say so in Selby in particular where the need is greatest, the local authorities must have the ability to designate what is provocatively called green field land, if they so wish in their local plan, proper consultations and strategic policies, they must have that freedom to do that if they are to be able to offer in their district land which will prove attractive to erm employment generating uses. Now those were the issues that were leading us sir had left us to make an objection to this structure plan that we thought erm the detailed papers on it were sent to the county in our in our objections, they led us to by a series of calculations to come to the view that around about a hundred hectares would be more appropriate for Harrogate, this is in addition to its Greater York supplement, erm than what is now settled upon which is sixty hectares. However, having heard today sir that two things. Erm firstly that if an existing employment use falls to another land use, this is what Mr Allenby was just saying, the subsequent release of employment land onto the market does not come out of the sixty hectares the structure plan's asking for, that's what that's what Mr Allenby just said, I hope he won't come back on it, major point. Having heard that, and secondly due to your patience er through your patience getting clarification that it the borough could if it wished allocate its sixty hectares under this structure plan policy outside the town centres and that things that then took place in town centres would be extra, it's not something they have to do but it's a freedom they would have in their local plan, having heard those two things, the concern I've got that even at sixty hectares, Harrogate's allocation was too small erm really recedes very quickly sir, and would completely disappear and here Mr Allenby and I are at one,
[speaker001:] [clears throat]
[Professor David Lock:] if the way this discussion had worked out had got the strategic site policy on the table today as a discussion item, and if we were able to get clear that such a strategic site policy if it existed was in addition to the
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Professor David Lock:] allocations under I five, I would be wholly happy sir and would be able formally withdraw our objections absolutely. So in summary there are three, three little erm weights in the balance here as far as er as far as I'm concerned, and all three weights in the balance would shut me up completely. The first one we've had satisfaction on today, erm that new employ sorry existing employment land falling vacant and being redeveloped doesn't count against the sixty hecst hectares, secondly that the borough if it wished, subject to the local plan process and er county structure plan policies could choose to put its sixt sixty hectares outside the city centres or in part, and then the third weight sir which much hover in the air I guess till tomorrow would be er the arrival of the strategic site policy which would be in addition. Those three things would kill it sir altogether and two already are looking very optimistic.
[Mr E Barnett:] The last could be the icing on the cake couldn't it?
[Professor David Lock:] Yes it could.
[speaker001:] [clears throat]
[Professor David Lock:] Couldn't put it better myself.
[Mr E Barnett:] Would you like then an interpretation of what is meant by I five and I twelve in the context of your comments?
[Professor David Lock:] That would really
[Mr E Barnett:] By both the county and Mr Allenby?
[Professor David Lock:] That would really help sir, thank you sir.
[Mr E Barnett:] Who who is going to that one? Mr Potter first?
[Mr David Potter:] Er David Potter, North Yorkshire County Council. Erm taking up Professor Lock's points of the way the figures were calculated. The B one development take-up is er I think a result of the the market in terms of B one is an attractive position for speculators, a great deal of that land has not yet been developed. I believe there is speculative developments appreciate that it is not likely to be developed for B one, it will become available for other uses. With regard to the thirty four workers forty three workers per hectare, the approved structure plan is based on forty three workers per hectare as a result of the Secretary of State's intervention in terms of, he agreed forty three workers per hectare, we simply carry that forward. The relocations issue, on relocations the County Council uses past land take-up, there will be an element of relocations included within that land take-up figure in so far as land which is vacated on small sites and falls to another use that is that is not counted. In terms of the economic activity projections, as a result of representations made to me by one of Professor Lock's colleagues, that was one of the main reasons I increased the assumptions on the eco economic activity based projection, to increase B one office relocations to a a far higher degree percentage than previously. So in fact I believe we have taken on all all of those issues. With regard to an absence of market demand, the economic development strategy produced by the County Council refers to inward investment, it refers to this as being a small portion of the portion of er job growth, the county is not necessarily best placed to attract inward investment in terms of the the type of economy that we have based on small firms and the availability of labour. The inward investment is will continue to be a source of new jobs and it is encouraged as a as making a contribution to new jobs, but is never going to be a major contributor to new job growth. So we have in fact taken on board what we consider to be the market demand issue. In terms of the land which is lost and will it be counted, er I would agree with David Allenby, in so in so far as where small sites are lost, they are in fact largely taken up in past land-take trends, but when a major site is lost, that at the moment forms part of the ninety one base of employment, and it it is something that we wouldn't have anticipated, therefore I think in terms of when we look at land availability figures and availability of supply erm we would have to look very carefully at land which is lost or significant land which is lost, or a significant number of jobs, it wouldn't necessary be added onto the structure plan requirement, but it could be deducted from the land availa land availability figures as land lost.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Do you have a threshold for that? In terms of size or
[Mr David Potter:] I think it depends very much on the circumstances. We would have to deal with that as and when it arose.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Right.
[speaker001:] [clears throat]
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr Allenby?
[Mr David Allenby:] Thank you chairman. David Allenby, Harrogate Borough Council. Just a a couple of points. Er on density we have ourselves done some er survey work to show that a density of about forty three persons per hectare is about right. I think our survey showed it could be as high as fifty per hectare in fact, er but we didn't have a full response to the survey and er there's nothing er in the results that would lead us to a conclusion that it should be lower or higher, so we're quite happy to accept that assumption. Erm on the use of existing employment sites, I'd hate you to go away with the impression that er we were actively seeking to reallocate sites as they came forward, and that certainly isn't the case. We have a policy within our local plan and the council are committed to a policy in the district-wide plan to retain employment sites in employment use wherever we can. However there will be circumstances where sites are not suitable for continued employment use, er perhaps because of their impact on neighbouring residential areas, er and in those circumstances we would want to make compensating
[Miss D Whittaker:] Can I take up this point about the forty three... forty three, the chairman is telling me thirty four. Erm
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Mr E Barnett:] forty three thirty four
[Miss D Whittaker:] As I understand it the structure plan is based on an average density employment density of forty three.
[Mr E Barnett:] That's correct yes.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Got the numbers in the right order. And I as I understand the County Council's justification, it is that this was what the Secretary of State changed it to in nineteen eighty seven.
[Mr David Potter:] That's correct.
[Miss D Whittaker:] I have been puzzling to establish and I have failed, whether on the fourteenth of January nineteen eighty seven when the Secretary of State wrote the notice of approval, which in confirms his view that forty three per hectare is right, whether the use classes order had then been amended. It seems to me, racking my memory that the use classes order post dates and therefore the introduction of class B one which was the main thing in the new use classes order, the chairman tells me it was nineteen eighty eight. In that sense, if my logic is okay so far, and it is the amendment to the use classes order which has significantly shifted how we regard employment development for planning, I wondered if the justification for the forty three per hectare, on the grounds that the Secretary of State imposed it, actually holds water, these days? Sorry that was a long and complicated version to your question. But was the question clear Mr Potter?
[Mr David Potter:] The the question was clear yes and er I in fact I agonized over that very question myself when I was trying to put these figures together. The er the figure of for the the density assumption used in the structure plan was originally thirty four workers per hectare and was corrected to forty three workers per hectare.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mhm.
[Mr David Potter:] Erm that was based, the thirty four workers per hectare was based on a a survey of er employment site ac sites across the county. I try to update that wherever I can, and it is very difficult, we have to use the annual census of employment and historic records. On the information that I have, densities range quite considerably, from as low as ten workers per hectare up to a hundred workers per hectare, but on average somewhere around thirty four, forty three could be taken if one wished to choose an average.
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Mr David Potter:] And as I was forced to do, adopting this approach, then that is the average I took. With regard to B one development, er I wrote around those areas where which to other county councils, structure plan societies which monitored B one development and where B one development had taken place, which was largely in the southeast. Again the densities that I was getting back from them varied considerably, from a hundred workers per hectare on some
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Mr David Potter:] B one developments again to much lower figures. Erm and given the wide range of densities, the only conclusion I came to was I should accept forty three workers per hectare.
[Miss D Whittaker:] How would you answer the allegation that that is unduly restrictive, bearing in mind the sort of factors which Professor Lock referred to like us all needing and liking more space?
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Miss D Whittaker:] And attractive surroundings and things like erm leisure facilities, save your heart exercise machines and all of that in our workplaces? Tennis court, I think you've got the message.
[Mr David Potter:] Yes erm modern business parks, erm they come in various shapes and sizes, some in extensive landscape settings with a lot of space around them, er and some at er Clifton Moor in York which er are more compact. And erm we have er multistorey units. I the densities will vary, you know the multistorey units, two or three floors office building could have a degree of er more more space around it. It it is very difficult to determine exactly what er space requirements are. I think forty three workers per hectare is a reasonable
[Miss D Whittaker:] The highest building I think I've seen is the Minster. Do we
[speaker001:] [clears throat]
[Miss D Whittaker:] want to encourage multistorey development?
[Mr David Potter:] No but er I think
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Mr David Potter:] recognize that er
[Miss D Whittaker:] yet again
[Mr David Potter:] there are one or two around yes.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Thank you.
[Mr E Barnett:] I'm just trying, looking through your submission to see whether in fact you have produced a table which showed the possible land provision based on thirty four workers to the hectare. Have you have you got have you done that
[Mr David Potter:] Yes the er that's a separate submission I've corrected today show's that.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yeah, yeah. Right. So in the context of thirty four workers per hectare as against forty three,
[Mr David Potter:] Mhm.
[Mr E Barnett:] doing a rough rule of thumb, and that could increase for example for example the Harrogate provision by a third couldn't it?
[Mr David Potter:] Erm
[Mr E Barnett:] Cos there's about a twenty five percent in workers per hectare, which actually would lead to about a third a third increase in the provision.
[Mr David Potter:] The the Harrogate the Harrogate provision would rise from er the rest of the district outside Greater York, would rise from fifty two hectares to sixty six hectares.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yeah.
[speaker001:] A significant percentage increase. Yeah. It's about twenty five percent.
[Mr E Barnett:] Sorry you said fifty two hectares for the rest of the district?
[Mr David Potter:] Rest of the district, yes.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes, yes, yes tabulation yeah, yeah.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Fifty two to sixty
[Mr David Potter:] To sixty five.
[Mr E Barnett:] What if
[Mr David Potter:] Sixty six.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes, yes.... Mr Allenby?
[Mr David Allenby:] David Allenby, Harrogate Borough Council. It it helps chairman er I could refer to the survey that we did erm of I think it was six erm industrial estates or employment er estates around the district, and they vary from modern business parks which are mainly office type developments through to some traditional and trading type estates. Erm at Hornbeam Park at er at Harrogate which is very recent office park, er had a density of forty two workers per hectare, whereas erm Lane Industrial Estate at Ripon which is a traditional sort of market town trading estate had a density of only thirteen
[Mr E Barnett:] Mhm. 7 to the hectare, and th the range as David Potter said and very you know very significantly erm up to sixty or seventy per hectare down to thirteen which was the lowest.
[Professor David Lock:] I beg your pardon
[Mr E Barnett:] It's alright. Professor Lock. Just want to see whether Professor Lock was wanted any more er clarification on the responses he's had.
[Professor David Lock:] Yes sir David Lock. I'm acutely aware of the Civic Society on my left desperate to get in. But erm the county didn't answer the er give us the clarification on the relationship between I twelve and I five erm that er we were asking for. Erm I've I particularly important because the districts here will need to feel very clear about what it is County Hall would not sorry would or would or would not jump on their necks for you see.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Professor David Lock:] This is terribly important. Er so any clarification you can give about er er Mr er with Mr Potter's comment that we would have to wait and see each one on its circumstances when we talking earlier about the industrial change of use makes me twitch, because it's lack of precision which all of us are trying to eliminate as much as we can in this process. So erm any er any clarification on the way the districts can use I twi er I twelve and I five as not being necessarily mutually exclusive wou would help.
[Mr David Potter:] David Potter, North Yorkshire County Council. Er policy I five is primarily intended to deal with traditional industrial development, but it also recognizes that an element of B one development will take place on there, and as such development within the the business class be acceptable. Policy I twelve seeks to cater for the needs of central area office development. Traditionally the two things have been very separate. Erm i the definition is less clear now. The with regard to the control of I twelve it is a matter for the district council to determine in their local plans to where a central area is put erm whether a central area development should take place.
[Professor David Lock:] I hope this is the last round sir. It begins to sound from this description that it's I twelve which is a bit of a dinosaur, a a dodo, that this is a county trying to carry on a thing which has probably passed its sell by date, that er it isn't fair to say that I five is primarily for industry, erm that isn't what the law says it is. You know whatever your intentions might be, a structure plan with that policy in it as was being discussed earlier, would admit all kinds of employment development within the relevant use classes order. Erm the er desire that I twelve conveys to encourage district councils to make special provision in their you know to emphasize high density employment in their city centres is understood, no quarrel with that, but if you can't, if you feel unable er at county level to be absolutely explicit, that a district would be free if it so chose, it might not choose to do so, if it so chose to make I twelve decisions that didn't come out of its I five, er they wouldn't have to come out of its I five allocations, unless you can be clear that they're free to do that, erm it suggests to me sir that may be it's I twelve that's that's getting in the way, erm and w that might well be something we can do without.
[Mr E Barnett:] David Potter?
[Professor David Lock:] Yeah David Potter North Yorkshire County Council. I I think I'm quite able to confirm that it is within the district power to to determine that erm the I five allocation should be separate from the I twelve. You are able.
[Mr E Barnett:] You you're happy with that?
[Professor David Lock:] Very happy.
[speaker001:] [clears throat]
[Professor David Lock:] Delirious.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr Cunnane.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr Cunnane believes his point has been answered yes?
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] We got out of the cul-de-sac?
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Miss D Whittaker:] I thought the score was fifty.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr Allen Allenby.
[Mr David Allenby:] [clears throat] Dave Allenby, Harrogate Borough Council. Can I just say on this sir that we we see policy I five as our interp sorry I twelve, it's our interpretation that it's really a recognition that office development is appropriate in or adjacent to er town centres and that we won't be seeking to er identify offices in or adjacent to town centres and take that element off the I five provision.
[Miss D Whittaker:] It will of course include other
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Miss D Whittaker:] types of B one use
[speaker001:] Mm.
[Miss D Whittaker:] in addition to office development. It would include as the policy is drafted light industry in town centres. Does Mr Potter accept it and he has no option use classes order?
[Mr David Potter:] Er David Potter, North Yorkshire County Council. I think yes er we have to accept that er the use classes order would allow that erm, but what we would anticipate is that in terms of I five, the local planning authority would be would allocate specific sites related to I five.
[Professor David Lock:] Yeah, yeah, yes. Yeah thanks.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr Laycock.
[Mr Laycock:] Thank you Mr chairman. One thing I've learnt in the last half hour is the speed at which the rules of debate seem to be changing and it will not surprise you to hear that as Mr Allenby and Harrogate District Council have moved towards Professor Lock's point of view, they have moved away from the Civic Society's point of view. Now I'd like to bring you back to Mr Williamson's opening remarks in which he described the allocations of land for industry and all these other things that are tied in with industry now as generous, making generous allocations, and the Civic Society would like to see those allocations rather less generous, we are like trying to develop a climate of restraint when on the expansion of Harrogate and the rate at which people are encouraged or wish to come into the town. Now we are of course talking principally on this sixty hectare allocation for the district outside the Greater York area because I think it is well understood this enquiry can have comparatively little impact on how much development takes place within the surroundings of Greater York, because I understand the site that's being discussed is already committed and it is in any case part of the York pool rather than the Harrogate pool. So we're talking about the sixty acre sixty hectares that are allocated for the rest of the Harrogate district and er I should like formal confirmation from Mr Allenby privately already that there is no question of any part of the York, Greater York area allocation being transferred into the rest of the district should it fall through for any purpose.
[Mr David Allenby:] Should I deal
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes.
[Mr David Allenby:] Should I deal with that right now chairman?
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes please. Yes
[Mr David Allenby:] Yes David Allenby, Harrogate Borough Council. Yes is that, that is my impression of the situation, the erm the basis of provision in the Greater York area is is that there is a site that is available and committed for er employment use. Erm if that site doesn't come forward, we won't be looking to transfer that allocation to the rest of the district. It'll have to be found somewhere else in Greater York.
[Mr Laycock:] Thank you that clarifies the issue and concentrates our minds on this figure of sixty hectares. Now we in the Harrogate Civic Society would like to see the rest of the district allocation reduced at least to fifty hectares which has something to do with the forecast requirement on the grounds of past take-up, and I believe it is nearer the original figure for the rest of the district floated by the county in the initial consultations before amendment was made to the allocation between Greater York and the rest of the district. Ideally the Civic Society would like to see far more drastic policy change, possibly thinking in terms of forty hectares but we realize the minimum possible would be the thirty point five hectares which is hanging over from the first phase of the structure plan, and so that must of course be regarded as committed. Now we have consistently been somewhat sceptical about the genuineness of demand for land for industrial purposes. There has been reference in the Selby area for the likelihood that land initially allocated for industry will in fact be taken up for a supermarket. In Harrogate all too often it is car showrooms. There's a site to which this Society objected on Wetherby Road in Harrogate which we thought didn't need developing at all, but in practice the District Council decided they wanted it for industry because it considered the need for industry to be so great and we have along this frontage of Wetherby Road a row of three car showrooms and a token spot of industry behind it. Now we see that happening in an existing allocation and our scepticism towards further allocations is increased. Erm there are other cases where there is addit er existing land in office or industrial use owned by National Power where the owner is now asking for the land to be con taken out of industrial use and er transferred to housing. Now the District Council is thinking in terms of this as a reason why perhaps sixty ac sixty hectares may not be entirely enough and we should seek to compensate for transfers out of industrial land. The Civic Society takes the view that if land is being transferred out of industrial land and the District Council is going to allow this to happen, this casts doubt about how genuine the need is to find additional industrial land when land already allocated to industry is being lost. Now the point has already been raised and partly answered in the question in the case of Selby District Council as to whether it matters whether there is an over-provision of land for industry and other employment. Well one detrimental consequence of allocating more land for industry and employment is the a greater unpredictability of take-up. If you're going to have to find a much larger area you have to spread your net wider to find more and more sites for development which you might otherwise have been able to save from development, and there will an environmental cost, a cost to the quality of life of people living nearby because sites you might not wish to have developed must be included to find the target figure of industrial development. And if in fact this large area of industrial development is not taken up, you cannot be sure that the bits that are not taken up will be the least environmentally sensitive. It may be the ones that are environmentally sensitive will be taken up and other sites which are less environmentally sensitive will not be taken up, and er so we are anxious that we do not over-provide because we are anxious to save many attractive sites around Harrogate from development. And er I've already referred to a byproduct of over-provision that sites are then moved on to sh car showrooms and erm supermarkets which are needs which or demands which would probably not have justified the allocation of the land for industry in the first place but once the land is allocated to industry it seems to be thought that no harm would be done by allocating those to something else. Over-provision has a sort of knock-on effect that er whatever we provide this time, we shall be asked to provide at the next revision of the structure plan and so if we can keep some land back this time, then that might be what we offer next time, we have to roll forward the structure plan. And that is another reason why we are very keen to cut the allocations to land to the absolute minimum. Now there's been a lot of talk about the need to revive employment in Harrogate, and erm the possible future regeneration of the North Yorkshire economy as compared with the existing concern of Leeds and other authorities to regenerate the West Yorkshire authority. I would hate to feel that we were taking jobs away from Leeds in the sense that er people from Leeds felt compelled to move to Harrogate to do those jobs and I would cannot help feeling that elsewhere in Yorkshire, and I'm thinking particularly of South and West Yorkshire, there are many derelict industrial sites which re need to be recycled before we
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Mr Laycock:] go too far along the line of er taking green field sites for new developments. Now a question of what are the industrial and employment needs of the Harrogate District? There's been a lot of concern over the past few months of the rate of increase in unemployment within the Harrogate District and how as a percentage unemployment has increased in the Harrogate District rather than other districts. Now I would say to sa say that that is almost a bit like the story of the boy crying that he didn't have many holidays because he didn't go to school and that because Harrogate's er unemployment is so low or has been historically so low compared with other areas, a relatively small increase in the number of unemployment has an enormous increase as compared with what it's been in the past and so the same number of people living in Harrogate who lose their jobs has an impact on the unemployment figures as perceived locally greater than a similar number of people losing their jobs in Leeds or Selby or somewhere else, and so I think to some extent this the rhetoric has outrun the reality on that point. I should also like to say that we are concerned about the question of how much industry should be in Harrogate and there's talk about avoiding the need for compu commuting. Now commuting is a consequence of human nature to a large extent, people choose to live away from their place of work and if they do choose to live away from their place of work then we'll need a much more authoritarian government than we are likely to see in the next ten or twenty years to stop people from living away from their place of work. And erm if we attract industry to the town, we'll attract people to the town to do the jobs and we'll have the commuting as well. And so I would like to discount all this talk about the need to cut down on commuting. I see this point of view from my own position as a third generation commuter between Harrogate and Leeds, and as a third generation commuter I don't feel that it is a commentary on any absence of jobs in Harrogate or any shortage of jobs in Harrogate that I work in Leeds and live in Harrogate, it's just something I've grown up to think of as natural. And many other people will choose to live in Harrogate even though they may have employment or L in Leeds or Selby District or Bradford District, and this will continue to happen. I do not think that the jobs that people in Harrogate will want to find will be jobs in the industrial area and they will tend to be office jobs, and to
[speaker001:] [clears throat]
[Mr Laycock:] some extent they will be found in existing sites. Now I think the regeneration of the economy of North Yorkshire in general and Harrogate in particular will be a part of the regeneration of the national economy, when things turn right for the nation as a whole, they will turn right for North Yorkshire as a whole and for Harrogate in particular. Erm any strategy for taking jobs away from other parts of the country towards Harrogate will not solve the nation's problems and it will not in the long term solve North Yorkshire's problems. I think as jobs come back, jobs will be found as the economy as a whole picks up. Jobs will be found in Harrogate as elsewhere, and if we're thinking of lumping in the B one office use and the other B uses in with the manufacturing, I think it's fair to say that office uses are going to be far denser in terms of number of jobs per hectare than manufacturing, and therefore the allocations may not seem to be as great as otherwise might have been demanded. I'll take a pause now
[speaker001:] [clears throat]
[Mr Laycock:] and then reply to any points that are made by anybody else.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you Mr Laycock. C could I just have your bottom line figure again then for I five. Fifty three?
[Mr Laycock:] Well we'd like to see at lea at least down to fifty but we'd really like to probe and push towards forty if we could.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you. Mr Allenby do you want to respond to any of those points which Mr Laycock has raised?
[Mr David Allenby:] Yes please chairman. Er David Allenby, Harrogate Borough Council. I've got a number of points I'd like to come back on. Erm the first relates to car showrooms. Erm I won't take up the point in relation to the particular site er Mr La Laycock was referring to but in general terms, car showrooms and people who work in car sho showrooms are taken into account in the calculation of employment needs,
[Mr E Barnett:] Mm.
[Mr David Allenby:] industrial and commercial employment needs of the area and therefore it is right that car showrooms can be provided on sites allocated under I five.... Er in relation to existing employment sites er and Mr Laycock referred to National Power, erm there we have an example of the attitude that the the council is taking towards the the re-use of employment sites. In fact we've just refused er the application er to change the use of that site to housing, or some of that site to housing, er for the very reason that we want to keep it in employment use and at the same meeting we also refused another site, another major employment site, erm and we want to keep that in employment use as well. So we we're taking a consistent line on existing employment sites, we do want to reuse them but we do recognize that there may be circumstances where that er that isn't the case. On migration, erm I really just wanted to make the point that erm the structure plan and er as supported by the local council is really seeking to meet the needs of the resident population. Erm the resident population will of course er include a significant proportion of people who are migrating into the district er as we saw last week. Erm the calculations that we have at the moment take on board the twenty five percent back in migration as proposed in the housing figures. If migration er increases to a hundred percent of past trends then the employment provision will have to increase also.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mm.
[Mr David Allenby:] Er the council's primary concern through all of this is that at the moment there are four thousand unemployed people in Harrogate District. Er the unemployment rate while still relatively in relation to national and even er regional levels, has increased very rapidly over the last few years and in fact over the last two or three years we've had something like three thousand jobs lost i in Harrogate. Er the fact that we've had low unemployment rates is due er mainly to the fact that provision was made for employment er in past years, and we want to make provision now to ensure that unemployment is as low as possible in the future. Erm as to the assertion that Harrogate wants office jobs and not industrial jobs, and I think the main point there is that we we're simply trying to achieve jobs to meet the needs of our resident workforce. Erm if the if office jobs are appropriate then they'll be provided or we'll seek to provide them, erm some jobs will be industrial jobs and no doubt that there will be office jobs. It's not for the planning authority
[speaker001:] [clears throat]
[Mr David Allenby:] to say what sort of jobs should be provided, but simply to ensure that the jobs that are provided do not have adverse environmental consequences that are are unacceptable. Er and finally to say that the strategy th that we have is not to take jobs from other areas, it is simply to meet the needs of the resident workforce. We are not seeking to attract people in er from Leeds or Bradford or anywhere else. We're simply simply looking to meet the needs of people who will be living in our district.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you. Mr Laycock?
[Mr Laycock:] Yes I should like to come back on one or two of those points. The Civic Society was naturally very pleased t that we the council turned down the application on the National Power site. It is our feeling that the council needs to be encouraged to take that attitude because if we have a change of policy as the District Council are asking, so that the number of sites released from... industrial use is compensated by new green field sites being allocated, then it seems a little bit like a blank cheque to us and we should like to see a firmer control on the amount of land that is lost to development and in seeing that firmer control we'd like to put pressure on the District Council by not offering them compensation
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Mr Laycock:] if they allow industrial sites to become something else. I do feel on the question of whether we are bringing people into the Harrogate area or catering for the needs of the residential population. The District Council's argument is in danger of going round in a circle. Catering for the resident population appears to be include catering for the population that will come into the town in order to do the new work that will be brought to the town by their policies. The he s Mr Allenby said, the resident populating includ including inward migrants. Inward migrants will include people who come into the district in order to do the jobs that are provided and there are many examples of employers coming to the town and bringing their own people into the town to do the jobs that are brought into the town. And there's concern about losing de Ministry of Defence jobs in Harrogate now. Well the Ministry of Defence came into Harrogate just over fifty years ago and the jobs were done to some e to a large extent by people who might never have come to Harrogate if the Ministry of Defence had not er brought them in. And to some extent if you do bring jobs into the town which bring new people into the town, when the particular employer that has brought these people into the town or the area closes down, then we have more jobs to find in the area. But the central argument on the industrial front is that if you bring a large number of extra jobs into an area where the unemployment is much below the national average, and much below the regional average, then you are going to bring people from the surrounding area in and many of those people we believe would far prefer to have found jobs nearer their existing homes.
[Mr E Barnett:] [clears throat] Thank you. Mr Lock, sorry Professor Lock? No? Can I conclude on Harrogate then and we adjourn for tea until three thirty. Thank you. [tea break] Erm because he would like to make a comment on the exceptions policy, he hasn't been invited to participate tomorrow, er I have exercised some latitude and said yes I will be happy to hear what he has to say, erm there is a prescribed time limit of which he is aware. The rest of us will take note of what he has to say and we'll bear it in mind tomorrow. So I'm not looking for a response to what he says at this stage. Mr Laycock.
[Mr Laycock:] Thank you very much Mr chairman. This follows on for from our concern about industrial development in the Harrogate District and that is that we are very pleased that the Harr that the North Yorkshire County Council has not embarked upon a strategic exceptions policy. I fear that a strategic exceptions policy can be all too easily a euphemism for giving big companies more favourable treatment than small companies. Erm so one suspects that if something of truly national importance really came, that it might any planning control might be overridden in the merits in the urgency of the case. The having adoption of a strategic exceptions policy is an invitation for many possible major developments to be to ride on the back of the strategic in exceptions policies and to argue that they come within in. And I fear that er it could be a a recipe for bypassing
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Mr Laycock:] environmental constraints if the organization is big enough to qualify as strategic, and I am really concerned about the planning er application in which I know that Da Professor Lock is interested that I think developments of that scale have nothing to do with the employment needs of the district, that they would in fact involve bringing in large numbers of people from other areas who as I have said before, might appreciate jobs nearer their present places of employment, and it would also unbalance the Harrogate housing market and put on pressure for more land to be taken in and around Harrogate for housing for the people who'd come to that development. So I I'm extremely pleased that the County Council have not gone for a strategic exceptions policy.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you very much. It is a theme which will be returned to tomorrow without doubt. Professor Lock is nodding his head. [cough] Can we now move to the other erm what I would describe as er item of contention, which is the amount of provision proposed for Richmondshire. Mr Steel.
[Mr Steel:] Mr chairman, erm, all my comments er er relate to I five, not er to I twelve. Erm in moving from Selby and er these other matters to er Richmondshire, we're moving fr from the er macro to the micro. Er I almost said su sublime to the ridiculous but I thought that might be misinterpreted.
[Mr E Barnett:] I would never describe Richmondshire as ridiculous.
[Mr Steel:] Thank you chairman.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Mr Steel:] If only everybody agreed with you.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Mr Steel:] Erm we've been given an allocation er in this er in these alterations of twenty five hectares. We feel this er this will hamper economic development in the district, it'll prevent us er achieving the proposals set out in er in our local plan and we're asking for thirty five hectares, an increase of ten hectares only. You've er got a copy of my written statement and I'll try to avoid repeating anything from that document, but it leans heavily on this which is the Richmondshire local plan interim statement. Erm it runs through the strategy that we're pursuing,i it er highlights the problems that er erm th that exist in the district, it stresses the need for flexibility and it concludes with an appendix which sets out the actual sites that we would like to see developed erm er over the next er ten years which is the length of the erm covered by the Richmondshire local plan. Having read through the er N Y N Y six and N Y seven, I've got to acknowledge that it's er far from easy to draw up a unified strategy for employment land in North Yorkshire and I can sympathize with the County Council er in their difficulties with the methodology and I think that they've adopted a very fair minded approach to this, they've er highlighted weaknesses wherever they occur, erm and I think that will be very obvious. That leads me to conclude that the only way to erm resolve matters is through consensus and I'm sure that that's essentially what we're about today. In fact erm, when I looked in detail at the written submission by the County Council, I found that er they ha th they said that they were placing emphasis on er on local factors. Now these local factors are not going to be strategic in nature er but they are important and er the er the County Council er concede this point. Erm in relation to Craven, the local view was taken into account, it says quite clearly in paragraph five of er N Y seven. Er in Hambleton's case, it's recognized that the allocation may be an over-provision but because of local plan proposals er an increase is merited, paragraph fifty one of N Y seven. Harrogate's figure er was increased after after representations by the er Borough Council, that's paragraph fifty six of N Y seven. Scarborough, adequate flexibility of land supply, that's a quote, it was referred to as a reason for greatly increasing the allocation above that which emerged from the er statistical work, paragraph seventy six of N Y seven and erm in Selby's case erm, land potentially available is recognized to be an important consideration, paragraph seventy eight of N Y seven. Er Mr Curtis opened er the session today er mentioning the the same sort of consideration had been given in York. Now when I was preparing this evidence, I got to this point and I thought to myself, why on earth has this not happened in Richmondshire? And I can only really regret with er with hindsight that er we as a District Council didn't pursue our point er more vigorously, erm as our general approach to these matters is er to cooperate as far as we possibly can rather than enter into conflict, and I think that perhaps we hadn't given as much emphasis to er the er our views as we ought to have done. Having said that, erm we we discussed these matters er in early nine nineteen ninety one at officer level, we set out a out a long letter setting out our concerns er in December nineteen ninety one. In relation to the consultation draft erm we er in April nineteen ninety two, we explained that we we believed that er erm the figure of twenty five hectares was not so far er adrift from our local plan proposals to merit an objection or merit treatment as a departure. Er that didn't draw any response from the County Council, so in er December nineteen ninety two when er when the deposit draft came through er we sought a clear understanding of the County Council position. We chased that letter in er March nineteen ninety three and er finally we wrote in July nineteen ninety three the letter which I've copied round er. Now you'll see in the final paragraph, er no in the second paragraph of that letter that er we're still looking for a er an amicable solution to erm to this whole thing. But we haven't had a response from the County Council. Now I'm I find it particularly strange that paragraph sixty one of N Y seven doesn't give any hint erm that the District Council was concerned about I I five figures until we were
[Mr E Barnett:] Mm.
[Mr Steel:] small sites. The sort of sites you'd expect to see allocated in a local plan. Now I think that er the County Council have reworked their figures and are probably pretty close to us now on on these matters. Erm perhaps no more than two hectares adrift, so if I could just emphasize that that land availability figure is round about thirty five hectares. Erm the the County Council have er highlighted open countryside as as a consideration that concerns them and er that's in paragraph ninety seven of er N Y seven. And I think it's of particular concern in Richmondshire. That paragraph refers to high quality of environment and agricultural land quality as factors which would have a bearing on the distribution of er erm employment land, and I just want to er assure the panel that I don't think any of the allocations that we've made er on the strength of the erm er consultations that we've entered into would cause problems er for either qual high quality environment or high quality agricultural land. I regard them as quite firm and realistic er allocations. Erm I'd like to pitch another figure into the debate, er because I don't agree with the County Council on this either. Erm I've circulated a map which shows the nineteen eighty one figures for commuting. Erm the the erm... figure for the whole of the district which is taken from the nineteen eighty one census is fifteen percent of the workforce working outside Richmondshire. Tha that's a pretty simple sort of basis for assessment, but as you'll see from the map it's not by no means a consis consistent level and in the areas where we're erm where where the sites for the most part occur, er the c the level of commuti commuting is much greater than it is er outside those areas. The er the only figure that I I can find for commuting erm supplied by the County Council is in er table five of N Y six I think it is, N Y six, where the County Council give er at the bottom of that erm on the bottom line of that table, a figure for Richmondshire of er three point five percent. I'm I'm really mentioning th this for the record because I don't think it er it goes to the heart of the issue since erm the the erm Richmondshire allocation does not depend on these figures, but I do want to emphasize that er doing something about the commuting problem is an issue in Richmondshire.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mhm.
[Mr Steel:] And just for the record there's an there's an error, a typographical error in the middle of that er table, there's a zero and there should another figure. Erm, having looked at all that, I think what the issue really boils down to essentially is the willingness of the County Council and I suppose the panel, having heard what er the debate, to accept what I think is really a modest level of flexibility er er requested by the District Council. That flexibility is needed for the following reasons. It er it meets the er the terms of government advice, it enables us to provide the sort of range of er sites that er we we feel we need to erm attack the problem of er economic development. It provides for alternative sites to be available in the knowledge that not all sites are gonna become available by the very nature of the exercise, that is what happens. It also has regard to the fact that er some land will be lost to development which is taking place under the terms of policy I four. Er nobody's mentioned this policy before, but I four relates to the expansion and relocation of existing firms. It's a c makes a considerable contribution
[Mr E Barnett:] Mm.
[Mr Steel:] to erm the the pattern of development going on in Richmondshire and I suspect in other districts as well, having read through their their evidence. Erm it's also acknowledged in paragraph thirteen of N Y six, but this this factor means that some of the development which takes place on the on a land allocated for I five won't actually go towards meeting the I five target, it'll be lost in terms of I four. The these are all reasons why there needs to be flexibility. Erm I noticed er with interest that in the Greater York context the County Council seem happy to offer this flexibility, that there they call it a bias towards opportunities for development which I'm quite happy to accept that term if er if it er improves our position.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Mr Steel:] Erm I've looked at the question of whether there's a down side to er what we're talking about, I've nearly finished chairman.
[Mr E Barnett:] It's alright.
[Mr Steel:] Erm, because the County Council
[speaker001:] [clears throat]
[Mr Steel:] they've talked about the problems of oversupply in two er two respects, sterilization of land. This is not er a realistic scenario in the Richmondshire context. Land er which is allocated for development through this plan will either remain in agriculture or er will be developed. I don't think there's a remote possibility that it's going to hang about in a kind of semi-derelict state er, because erm somebody's invested in infrastructure, altered its character but there are no takers for erm for the the development which follows from that. That's not a realistic position. Now the the second point raised by the County Council is the their concern that residential development will be unsynchronized with employment development. And I I noticed with interest er I'm really going shifting right back to er last week here, er the Housebuilders' Federation er were all sort of putting the reverse argument forward. They they erm er in their document identified er the fact that Richmondshire is getting six point one percent of the housing allocation and five point one percent of the employment allocation. I'm mentioning this simply to er highlight the fact that if there is a bit of an upward movement in er the employment allocation, it'll simply re-synchronize it with the housing allocation. Now I know those are pretty crude figures but it's an item of evidence. Erm the District Council isn't being arbitrary in er in this respect. We er we've tried to er to meet the the the County Council's requirements, we've scaled down our original er provision of erm employment land to take account of the emerging structure plan thinking. We er went as far as we could without er erm finding that we would have to delete allocations that we were making or produce unrealistic er development sites erm the the figure of er twenty five hectares simply means that we're ratcheting the the whole thing down to a point at which it can't be sustained. Erm I I know with certainty that the thirty five hectare that we're ask hectares that we're asking for can be achieved, because we know the sites that er that where development will take place. Erm the final point is that er the the er the County Council have suggested in paragraph five of N Y seven that certain matters could be held over to complete review of the er er structure plan. I would not want this er this issue to be treated in that way and I'm sure the panel won't do that. And a absolutely finally, all my comments have been related to the area of Richmondshire outside the Yorkshire Dales National Park.
[Mr E Barnett:] You answered one of the questions I was going to pose to you. Erm in effect what you're s what you're asking for is the level of provision to return to something equivalent to what it is in the approved structure plan er and also would reflect fairly careful analysis of what you've done as to what would be reasonable allocations.
[Mr Steel:] Absolutely chairman.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you. Mr Potter.
[Mr David Potter:] David Potter, North Yorkshire County Council. Er taking some of the points that have been raised by Mr Steel. Erm Mr Steel's quite correct, in determining the appropriate level of provision for Richmondshire and other districts, we I essentially followed the the course of action which you've outlined in the background papers. Following the publication of er draft figures, I discussed these with the districts, and where it was felt appropriate to take on board s er suggestions made by the districts, this was done. A number of meetings have been held with District Councils over the period of the preparation of the plan. The amendments that Mr Steel refers to specifically, relating to other districts, were all made as a direct consequence of those districts making formal representations to the consultation draft. The formal representations made by Richmondshire suggested that there was no conflict with the proposed provision in the consultation draft and their local plan strategy. At the deposit plan stage, again no clear formal objection was made by the district as to the inappropriateness of this particular level of provision. The discussions between the County Council and the District Council go back some considerable time, over the proposed level of provision in the district statement erm the core strategy for employment, and there is a particular issue between us over the distribution of this land within the district, in terms of its compatibility with the structure plan strategy. The figures that er Mr Steel referred to on commuting flows neglect to refer to the inflow of commuters, the figures that I've used are a net is a net figure which reflects outflow and inflow. Work would be a crude er a crude assessment er between nineteen ei nineteen ninety one census of employment data and nineteen ninety one census data would indicate that there is a greater inflow of commuters now than in nineteen eighty one, although I accept that that is crude and I wouldn't like to
[Mr E Barnett:] Mm.
[Mr David Potter:] rely on that particularly. With regard to the Greater York bias, the Greater York bias he refers to is simply a bias towards where the opportunities for development exist in Greater York, it is not a bias in any other sense than in terms of its distribution. We had to look at where the opportunities were for development in Greater York as a whole rather than looking at individual district elements, and in terms of land available, erm Mr Steel appears to have included some sites which we classify as land held in reserve, which we don't normally count towards the land availability targets, although we do acknowledge that it is there. That is t to er that is land which is held for expansion purposes, clearly identified by firms as meeting their expansion needs. We note it but we don't include it within the land availability figures in relation to erm policy I four. And with ret with er land availability erm with regard to the land availability figures, Mr Steel also includes a s a site of some ten hectares which the County Council has formally objected to in terms of a planning application lodged and in terms of the distributional strategy of the local plan. If that is excluded, then we come back down towards the twenty five hectares.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr Steel?
[Mr Steel:] Paul Steel, er chairman, Richmondshire. Erm just a correction er really chairman. I er I've discussed these availability figures and I think it's important in Richmondshire's case er to get the answer right. Erm, talked about them to County Council staff only today. The there is a core of them which is land available in terms of this document. That is something like twenty five twenty seven hectares. The land held in reserve in Richmondshire's case is not just land held in reserve for existing firms to expand on, but also includes three sites which are identified in this document as being reserved for development after two thousand and one, between two thousand and one and two thousand and six. Those three sites amount to eleven plus hectares. That's where I get my erm total of thirty s thirty five
[Mr E Barnett:] Mhm.
[Mr Steel:] give or take.... The second point I can't just er
[Mr E Barnett:] Is the question or the point that Mr Potter raised about the ten hectare site to which the County Council objects?
[Mr Steel:] Yeah.
[Mr E Barnett:] Is that is that part of your thirty six hectares?
[Mr Steel:] It's part of the thirty six hectares chairman but it's only a seven hectare site.
[Mr E Barnett:] Seven hectare site.
[Mr Steel:] We're straying into what I think are probably local plan issues here really,
[Mr E Barnett:] Mm, yes, yes.
[Mr Steel:] er arguing about the merits of individual sites. Er I could go on at great length about it if you wish me to but I'm sure you don't.
[Mr E Barnett:] No, no. Mr Potter, can I come back to you. Bearing in mind that Mr Steel probably on his own admission has said he's been a bit late out of the starting blocks in order to make his bid for a review of the allocations, er I mean how do you feel in response to that? Would you be minded to move move the Richmondshire figure back to where it is in the at least in the
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Mr E Barnett:] approved structure plan?
[Mr David Potter:] David Potter, North Yorkshire County Council. Erm the approach we've adopted is to try and be as flexible as possible in terms of the using both the land-take and the economic activity rates. Er and in the lack of any specific response or request from the District Council on the flexibility issue, we I feel that those that allocation of twenty five hectares
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Mr David Potter:] is broadly appropriate, but I would add that within the letter to the District Council objecting to the particular site, I do acknowledge that there is no suitable site available in the district for the the park.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mhm.
[Miss D Whittaker:] I think the question which is critical to us is how would an additional ten hectares in Richmondshire harm the strategic objectives of the County Council?
[Mr David Potter:] I think it depends where it is.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Miss D Whittaker:] Are you saying it is impossible for Richmondshire to find an additional ten hectares?
[Mr David Potter:] No.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Would doing that which would be acceptable to you,
[Mr David Potter:] Yes, if it provided the additional flexibility
[Miss D Whittaker:] would doing that harm the County Council's objectives?
[Mr David Potter:] I think looking at it in terms of an overall position, I think that.
[Miss D Whittaker:] I beg your pardon?
[Mr E Barnett:] The answer is no.
[Mr David Potter:] I think the answer is no in local terms.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Thank you.
[Mr E Barnett:] Now er the other districts have sat patiently and quietly through this discussion. I've taken the view that since you all appear to be happy with the provision made for you in I five, you don't wish to make any comment? Or do you want to have a chance to say something in the light of the way the discussion's progressed during the day? Right, now then can I pose a question to you, Mrs, well it's a collective question really for all the districts. If the density of workers to the hectare was changed from forty three to thirty four with a consequent increase in the allocation of provision, could you cope with that?... Would it, are there any districts where that would raise serious problems?... Yes it would be equivalent actually Mr Steel to the, well yes. Mr Curtis cannot get another
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Mr E Barnett:] I'm not gonna stop you from talking Mr Curtis but I
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr Curtis.
[speaker001:] Thank you chair, David Curtis, York City Council. Erm my only comment really would obviously be in relation to the Greater York situation.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yeah.
[speaker001:] Erm if I understand it correctly from from Mr Potter's er table nine, the implication would be that the the Greater York figure would go up to a hundred and sixty one hectares based on thirty four to the acr hectare, that is correct?
[Mr David Potter:] That's correct yes.
[speaker001:] Clearly that would require a further erm sixteen hectares to be found compared to the hundred and forty five because the hundred and forty five did include an allowance for flexibility in the first place?
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes, yes.
[speaker001:] Erm, there are no agreed sites at the present time. There are other sites which my authority might note on that basis but which are not agreed with the County Council so I would be quite content with an increase in the Greater York figure on that basis. But clearly the County Council may not agree with me.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes, yes.... I won't ask you Mr Heselton,
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Mr E Barnett:] Two hundred to two hundred and fifty is very flexible.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr Williamson. Er yes chairman erm I don't think erm Ray Williamson, Scarborough Council. Erm I don't think we have any real difficulty with dealing with an extra erm as I calculate it around about fifty acres. Yes hectares, not acres. Well no I don't Alright. think we we're talking about hectares in this case, we'll be talking around about twenty twenty hectares. Yeah. And I do I don't think we'd have any particular difficulty in coping with that increase.
[speaker001:] [clears throat]
[Mr E Barnett:] Erm thank you. Mr Steel.
[Mr Steel:] Paul Steel, Richmondshire, chairman. Er [clears throat] the County Council did not use the erm calculation of need which would be affected by the proposition you've just put forward based on land-take, past land-take. Past land-take is an absolute thing which doesn't depend on density
[Mr E Barnett:] Yeah, yeah, yeah.
[Mr Steel:] so I'm ducking out of.
[Mr E Barnett:] You are right, okay. How about Craven?
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] Er Sharon Watson, er Craven District. Erm I think based on table nine erm the increase er by thirty four workers per hectare would cause Craven some problems.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mhm.
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] Er in environmental terms
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] erm we're already [clears throat] to release green field site which has been fairly environmentally sensitive
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] er we'd have to insist upon a extensive landscaping compensations, erm er to in order for it to be to go ahead, er so I think the increase we would be looking at environmentally sensitive site.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes, yes. I mean s sorry, just just to press you erm you wouldn't be unhappy if you stayed at twenty five hectares would you?
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] No. No we'd be happy with twenty five hectares.
[Mr E Barnett:] Right, thank you. Mr Smith Mr Smith.
[Professor David Lock:] Ian Smith, Ryedale. I'm not quite sure what how much the figure for Ryedale within Greater York would actually go up, erm placed on thirty four workers per hectare.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr Potter you
[Mr David Potter:] Er David David Potter, North Yorkshire County Council. Erm the figure for Ryedale
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Mr David Potter:] would increase overall by about five hectares or so.
[Mr E Barnett:] In the Greater York area?
[Mr David Potter:] Erm no outside Greater York.
[Mr E Barnett:] Outside Greater York yes.
[Professor David Lock:] I th I think outside Greater York we could probably cope with that.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes.
[Miss D Whittaker:] The figures we were given this morning indicate that in within the Greater York area, the increase would be from sixteen point three to twenty point six.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mhm.
[Professor David Lock:] I mean, Ian Smith, Ryedale. We're already accommodating erm
[Mr E Barnett:] Yeah.
[Professor David Lock:] forty three hectares of land in Greater York anyway, erm I'm not sure
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Professor David Lock:] how we would accommodate much more with a very tight greenbelt on the erm the sites that we've actually allocated on our side of Ryedale and take account of greenbelt so.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr Allenby?
[Mr David Allenby:] Chairman, David Allenby, Harrogate Borough Council. No I don't think it would cause us er any real problems, we're talking about er an increase of about five hectares, my understanding, er I think that could be accommodated er in line with what we already intend to do erm in the local plan anyway.
[Mr E Barnett:] My arithm my arithmetic makes it about nearly fourteen hectares.
[Mr David Allenby:] I think that's a
[Mr E Barnett:] Am I interpreting these columns wrongly Mr Potter? Fifty one point nine nine to sixty five point seven five?
[Mr David Potter:] Yeah, sixty five point seven five er the rest of the district.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yeah, yeah.
[Mr David Potter:] If if you add on the Greater York requirement of thirty hectares it goes up to about ninety five hectares.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yeah, yeah.
[Mr David Potter:] So overall it's only about five hectares.
[Mr E Barnett:] Five thank you.
[Mr David Allenby:] Yeah it's five.
[Mr E Barnett:] Okay, yeah. Mr Jewitt.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Michael Jewitt, Hambleton District Council. Er well chairman it doesn't really affect the Hambleton figure. Erm the worker density figure really relates to the job gap calculation erm which for Hambleton showed substantially less than the seventy hectares provided for in er the proposed policy, it showed thirty one hectares. Er if the council didn't have any confidence erm in this figure but if erm you apply the er revised worker dens density to the thirty one hectares, you get thirty nine hectares, which reduces the gap
[Mr E Barnett:] Yeah.
[Miss D Whittaker:] between the job gap
[Mr E Barnett:] Yeah.
[Miss D Whittaker:] calculation and the land-take calculation so it wouldn't present us with any erm particular
[Mr E Barnett:] No, no.
[Miss D Whittaker:] problems.
[Mr E Barnett:] In fact you're happy with your seventy hectares?
[Miss D Whittaker:] Er absolutely.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you.... Mr Laycock?
[Mr Laycock:] Yes I think you can guess what the Harrogate Civic Society is
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes I can.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Mr Laycock:] but er if er we would oppose the recalculation on the basis of the lower density
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes, yes.
[Mr Laycock:] most of the jobs that are likely to be needed in the s in the Harrogate area would be office or administrative jobs where a higher density would survive.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yeah. Thank you. Now erm yeah, Craven?
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] Sharon Watson, Craven District. Can I just er clarify a point? Erm the table nine that er the county produce this morning erm has erm a reassessed requirement for Craven based on erm economic activity monitor data, plus relocation allowances. Now we would be happy with the thirty three hectares for Craven, twenty five hectares
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes.
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] support.
[Mr E Barnett:] You've made that clear yeah. Yeah.
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] I just wondered whether that point.
[Mr E Barnett:] Er well there are still, come back to the county, can we now round off on the question of... keep losing my crib sheet here... the effect what effect if any will the proposed scale of provision have on adjoining areas in West Yorkshire. Mr Girt, you have er your chance, to kick off on this one.
[Mr David Potter:] Thank you chair, Dave
[Mr E Barnett:] I take it I take it you're representing Leeds or are you speaking also on behalf of your colleague from Bradford?
[Mr David Potter:] I'm speaking on behalf of Leeds City Council.
[Mr E Barnett:] Right thank you.
[Mr David Potter:] Erm [clears throat] you'll recall the City Council's objection was both to the level and the distribution of employment land in North Yorkshire, er in particular as far as it relates to the likely effects on regeneration in West Yorkshire and in Leeds in particular. You've heard before that Leeds works within the rules of the framework set down by regional planning guidance, and that makes very and the main stream of that guidance is the revitalization of our inner areas. Regeneration's still a major problem in Leeds, if I could just give you some some rough and ready figures chairman. A quick calculation suggests there are over a hundred and sixty brown field sites of an industrial type and they amount to something like three hundred and sixty hectares. So we got a very substantial problem still to overcome in Leeds. I haven't heard yet from anybody that regeneration's properly been taken into account in the calculations within local level or county level. It simply hasn't been demonstrated that any cognizance has been made of R P G two, therefore that these concerns still remain on the table.
[Mr E Barnett:] Can I have, can I have a county response to that point?
[Mr David Potter:] David Potter, North Yorkshire County Council. Erm perhaps I can turn the the question on its head and and I think the way the County Council's looked at it, what would be the implications of not providing for the needs of North Yorkshire, and that's I think the approach that we have taken in the first instance, is to try and determine what the needs of North Yorkshire are and to borrow a phrase from Professor Lock, in strategic terms to look at er try to achieve full employment in North Yorkshire. That has been a primary objective.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Are you arguing Mr Girt that the level of provision of employment land proposed by North Yorkshire County Council is excessive, bearing in mind your request that the County Council should at the same time cater for one hundred percent of past migration trends, including that coming from the Leeds Metropolitan Area? Or are you saying that the level of provision the County Council propose for employment is excessive bearing in mind that they do not propose to cater for one hundred percent migration?
[Mr David Potter:] Erm, Dave Girt, Leeds City Council. make it look simpler than that. We're simply saying that it's not been demonstrated that regeneration of West Yorkshire's been taken into account. We're not saying the figure's necessarily excessive, we're simply looking to see how regeneration of West Yorkshire's been taken into account, if at all. And then we can be in a position to to judge.
[Mr E Barnett:] And how, how
[Miss D Whittaker:] Erm
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Mr David Potter:] figure er to some extent is plucked from the air, it's a figure in excess of the two basic ingredients of the job gap and the
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Mr David Potter:] take-up trend er ingredients
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Mr David Potter:] to the formulation of the figure. Other
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Mr David Potter:] Other aspects necessarily need to be taken into account. And Leeds acknowledges that one of the things the other things that needs to be taken into account by North Yorkshire if if R P G two is to be conformed with, is the need to revitalize West Yorkshire.
[Miss D Whittaker:] But I'm sorry, I think it's necessary for me to pursue the point I was making. If the panel is satisfied and indeed you are satisfied that the level of provision in North Yorkshire is necessary to provide employment for those persons who will be resident in North Yorkshire, what is the problem?
[Mr David Potter:] Well, if the panel's satisfied, Madam, chair erm there's no problem.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Mr David Potter:] At the end of the day
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Mr David Potter:] each district, Metropolitan District and County District will want some freedom to determine its figures. We're simply saying it's government policy that North Yorkshire takes account of the regeneration needs of West Yorkshire. At the moment there's no indication that they've done anything, it's almost as though that particular prescription was.
[Miss D Whittaker:] I sense that you are suggesting the County Council should have done more than write a paragraph or two
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Miss D Whittaker:] in the explanatory memorandum of alteration number three, which say we have had regard to the regeneration needs of West Yorkshire? Nevertheless we have arrived at the same figures.
[Mr David Potter:] Dave Girt, Leeds City Council. Yes it wasn't more than a token reference. We need to see that they have taken it into account.
[Miss D Whittaker:] What
[Mr David Potter:] so far as they have made some er adjustment, we will be able to judge whether the scale of adjustment they've made was a was a reasonable thing.
[Miss D Whittaker:] I'm sorry. Can you be more explicit about what it is you want to see in the North Yorkshire structure plan?
[Mr David Potter:] I'm not, City Council, I'm not sure that I can be more specific about we need to see some reference and some
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Mr David Potter:] indication of some adjustment to a calculation of er employment land allocation.
[Mr E Barnett:] In other words what
[Miss D Whittaker:] I take
[Mr E Barnett:] I mean what you're looking for is a reduction or what you would have liked to have seen a reduction in the land allocation for employment needs, and yet in the other breath you are saying to North Yorkshire, you should really cater for one hundred percent migration. Now you can't have it both ways, surely?
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Mr David Potter:] Dave Girt, Leeds City Council. We're not asking R P G two has to have it both ways if if that idea is er is there at all.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr Williamson.
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] Yes thank you chairman.
[Mr E Barnett:] Take us out of this maze.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] I'm not sure I can take you [LAUGHTER] take you out of it []. Ken Williamson North Yorkshire County Council. Er all I can say chairman is that the County Council is is working within the approved structure plan strategy which is based on restraint, based primarily on housing restraint but I think that's what the County Council has done in its er employment land proposals is to set certain parameters which appear to us to really reasonably meet requirements of this authority's resident population. Erm we are not going any further than that erm we the debate this morning erm we were looking at the differences between ourselves and then for example Selby District of what what they would like to see which was er certainly more than growth oriented the County Council's proposals are. Erm we've feel we've gone as far as it's practical to go to to meet erm what are after all the genuine needs of genuine needs of our own population. Now if we don't do that of course we er we're going to change lots of patterns, we're going to potentially increase er commuting out of the area into Leeds, that's not something which we feel is consistent with er planning policy guidance in the realm erm, I don't think there's anything as far as I know in R P G two which er says that adjoining authorities around West Yorkshire shouldn't er seek to make provision reasonable provision for their own er residents' needs.
[Mr David Potter:] Dave Girt, Leeds City Council. No there is. Dave Girt, Leeds City Council. No there isn't a specific statement in er R P G two. There is a statement that asks and directs the County Council to take account of the need to r revitalize West Yorkshire and as far as we can see that hasn't been done. Now I I don't want to tell the County Council how to do it, I mean I think that's that's up to the County Council
[Miss D Whittaker:] But I'm begging you to tell the panel how to do it please.
[Mr David Potter:] Well it's not my job.
[Miss D Whittaker:] As I understand it a and please correct me if I've got it wrong, in the interests of the Leeds Metropolitan Area, you have argued that North Yorkshire should make greater provision for residential. Is that correct?
[Mr David Potter:] Yes.
[Miss D Whittaker:] You have also argued that any generation of increased commuting
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Miss D Whittaker:] should be avoided. Is that correct?
[Mr David Potter:] Madam, chair, we would certainly wish to commuting as far as that's possible.
[Miss D Whittaker:] D does is not follow from that that you would argue that North Yorkshire to av to achieve those two ends needs to make adequate provision for the employment of the people it will house?
[Mr David Potter:] Dave Girt, Leeds City Council. I think it's a question of degree. Commuting will continue, the the boundaries of local government areas bear no relation to social geography. Leeds City Council does not expect within its plan period nor does it expect within the period of the North Yorkshire alterations, commuting will disappear. It will continue, but the kinds of jobs which are available in Leeds city centre, er in in some ways are unlikely ever to be provided in particularly in rural districts, precisely because Leeds is the regional capital. Some of those
[Miss D Whittaker:] Yes.
[Mr David Potter:] jobs are not jobs you would expect to find in villages or large towns
[Miss D Whittaker:] Can I just
[Mr David Potter:] so commuting will always continue.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Yes. Can I put it another way to you, that if houses are provided for people who have migrated from West Yorkshire to North Yorkshire, that the failure to provide for employment of an equivalent level, because I well appreciate we are not going to stop Mr Laycock driving or commute I beg your pardon commuting each day from Harrogate to Leeds, that failure failure to provide an adequate level of employment for those new residents would be contrary to the advice in P P G twelve and P P G 14 about reducing the need to travel?
[Mr David Potter:] I accept, Dave Girt, Leeds City Council, yes I accept that that would be consistent with the government's advice in those particular P P Gs. Now could I could I just er enlighten that?
[Miss D Whittaker:] Yes of course.
[Mr David Potter:] Erm you you bring me onto the second dimension of Leeds' objection which is to do with the distribution of those jobs. Leeds has asked that migration continue to be accommodated in Craven, Harrogate and er Hambleton but we've objected to the idea of a new settlement in Selby and our main concern is with major employment focused in the Leeds York corridor, and that's the substance of our objection. The scale of employment suggested in Selby seems not to be er reflecting the restraint policy suggested in R P G two. Now to some extent our concerns have been diffused, it seems that we misunderstood the distribution, er we now know, thanks to this morning that the hundred and forty five hectares for Greater York is on the inside edge of the York greenbelt and not footloose in the Leeds York corridor.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yeah.
[Mr David Potter:] Erm to that extent Leeds concerns are much diminished. I'm I'm a little unclear exactly how much footloose allocation remains in Selby, I I er think I understand it to be quite small, taking account of, but I would simply say to the panel Leeds' concern is that we should not be a counter focus in that corridor, which er most most greatly bear on our attempts to regenerate our inner areas and use our our many brown field sites.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yeah that's okay. Mr Cunnane, and then Mr Heselton and then Mr Williams.
[Mr Joe Cunnane:] Er Joe Cunnane, J C Cunnane Associates. Erm the point I would like to make is is is in part made by Mr Girt, and that is that er with particular reference to Selby. Er Selby have as I und as I can see it today, failed to establish any need for the bid for two hundred two hundred and fifty hectares which they've put forward. The figure which has been put forward by the county of a hundred and twenty two hectares for Selby deals with three elements. It deals with local need, it deals with planned migration and it deals with unemployment. And therefore it must by definition be the case that anything over and above the one hundred and twenty two which I know Selby have not challenged on on on the basis of the assessment, er anything over and above that hundred and twenty two must siphon investment and economic activity from somewhere else because it's not local, it's not it's not unemployed, it's not local needs and it's not migration. And our concern is that if that figure is appro is is agreed or recommended by the panel or it's gonna to be taken by the county that there is something in the order of a hundred and thirty hectares of employment land which is going to take investment from somewhere. It may not be from West Yorkshire but it's very likely that it will be. It could be from South Yorkshire.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr Heselton?
[Mr Terry Heselton:] Er thank you sir. Erm Terry Heselton, Selby District. Erm in response first to Mr Mr Cunnane's point. Erm cos I I think Mr Mr Potter and others have already referred to the fact that it there's no evidence as yet that er demand is being siphoned off from from West Yorkshire to Selby. Erm coming back to Mr Mr Girt's points
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Mr Terry Heselton:] erm if we can't satisfy him in terms of what we've already submitted to the panel satisfy him in in terms of our actions. Er for the panel's information, Selby District er at any rate has not objected to Leeds City's proposals in in their U D P for development in within their administrative area which as I mentioned this morning are very substantial. Er approximately eight hundred hectares I think, and I suppose the cynical amongst us might might say what has the allocation of of nearly a hundred hectares of land adjacent to the A one, some of which is in in greenbelt, what has that got anything to do with the er vitality of of Leeds commercial centre or urban regeneration, but we accept that's a that's a matter for Leeds, we not objecting to their proposals. But by by the same token, as as I've already set out in in my submission, we we believe there is an urgent need and a justifiable demand in Selby District and that's partly related to the need to have a distribution of available employment opportunities throughout the district. Er much reference has already been made to this er golden corridor between Leeds a and York and I I really fail to see th that it is going to pose the the threat that some people think it will and and the analysis that we've carried carried out has has thrown up two two figures, one in the region of twenty er a need of twenty to twenty five hectares in what describe as a northern centre based on on Tadcaster and I think we acknowledge that er we may struggle to achieve those twenty to twenty five hectares in and around Tadcaster, partly because of greenbelt constraint and and partly because of other constraints. And coming back to the twenty to twenty five hectare requirement within Greater York, as I've already mentioned most of that is is in fact al already committed so I I really don't see the problem in in the Leeds York corridor.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you. Before before Mr Williamson sums up, we've one or two questions.
[Miss D Whittaker:] In relation to policy I five if I may. And in posing these questions I well appreciate that the terms in which I five is presented are exactly those in the approved structure plan, with the exception of the deletion of the specific references to certain town centres and provision. Nevertheless
[Mr E Barnett:] Sorry are you talking about I twelve?
[Miss D Whittaker:] I beg your pardon, I twelve. Nevertheless undaunted, since things have moved on a bit since nineteen eighty seven, I suppose what I'm looking for is some guidance as to the way in which policy I twelve has operated in practice.
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Miss D Whittaker:] And if I can identify some of the thoughts which occurred to me and they are relatively minor points about the wording of I five in relation to the first two criteria. [reading] Would significantly improve the scale and range of local job opportunities. [] Have there been any difficulties in the interpretation and application of that policy in relation to the scale of what is really there on the ground? I think for example of the sensitivity of some of the small market towns, the point for example that was made to us last week about the sensitivity one settlement with which I've come increasingly familiar over the last fortnight and that is town centre. Is that a problem, or is it not a problem? The second thought is in relation to the second criteria, in view of the move of government policy in particular P P G 4 would it be helpful sensible to include the word under-used in terms would increase the use of vacant under- used or derelict premises and sites? And my final point is in effect a question. Do do these criteria operate independently or do they all have to be met to be acceptable? And a final thought, did I say the last one, that one
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes.
[Miss D Whittaker:] was the final thought? This is this is the final final thought. No it isn't, it's gone.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Miss D Whittaker:] Professor Lock would erm have something to say if I raised the final one so I shan't do that.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr Potter.
[Mr David Potter:] David Potter, North Yorkshire County Council. Erm I think I ought to be brief on this. One of the problems with I twelve and the numerical content of I twelve is that it's very difficult to differentiate between offices and services, it's proved impossible to monitor. We have no information on the way in fact the way in which I twelve worked. Er when it comes down to application at the local sense then at the local level, I think my colleagues might be able to er give more enlightenment on that. In, with regard to the change of wording, erm I think that would probably add to the policy rather than detract from it and I I think the conclusion I would come to is that the criteria are independent they're not and or or. Er I think that's all I can say on it.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you for that. Do any of the District Planning Officers want to comment? Mr Curtis.
[speaker001:] David Curtis, York City Council. Erm clearly in York we are dealing with a different scale of of urban centre than the one the Senior Inspector was referring to. All I would say that er notwithstanding the conservation constraints within the city centre, we have not found this policy erm unhelpful as it were, we have been able to conform with the terms of this policy and allow appropriate levels of er commercial development within the city centre. And I would also support Mr Potters in the addition of the under-used term would I think be beneficial to the policy.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you. Mr Jewitt?
[Miss D Whittaker:] Thank you chairman. Er Michael Jewitt, Hambleton District Council. Erm with reference to er Easingwold.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Miss D Whittaker:] Erm the si the iss er the point raised by the Senior Inspector. I I would say it's not been an issue, erm in the small market towns and i the er criterion erm I therefore has not presented problems er to Hambleton. I would say though erm that erm if we were faced with er significant erm office er proposals that generated er generated a significant number of jobs then er the environmental issues would be weighed by the policies in the plan and er they would need to be weighed against the job creation. Erm I don't think er on balance I don't think that that criterion causes any problems.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you.
[speaker001:] Er policy I twelve I don't think has caused us any particular problems in Skipton which is where the main office developments have been er taking place, I think I would reiterate some of the comments
[Mr E Barnett:] Yeah.
[speaker001:] that Mr Jewitt made. Erm the inclusion of under-used land in er criterion number two I think would be helpful.
[Mr E Barnett:] Can I say don't feel obliged to answer if if I take it that your silence means acquiescence then I'm quite happy. Mr Allenby?
[Mr David Allenby:] David Allenby, Harrogate Borough Council. I just wanted I was trying to rack my brain to see when er we've had real regard to this policy
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Miss D Whittaker:] It must be a good
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Mr E Barnett:] Do you do you want to rephrase that?
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Mr David Allenby:] Yes erm when this policy has been a significant issue in dealing with either the local plan or er
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Mr David Allenby:] planning applications, erm the sort of locational aspects are important, the the existing policy in the structure plan did have some sort of control over the the number of jobs, but it's as as David Potter has said, it's been very difficult to monitor er the level of jobs being provided, and in practice it's been really impossible to implement that aspect of of the policy. Erm I don't think that the poli ha policy has caused us any problems in the past and I don't think the policy as proposed now will cause us any problems either.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yeah. Can I put it another way, has it got more benefits than dis- 5 Erm, D
[Mr David Allenby:] Yes.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you. Mr Williamson or Mr, sorry Mr Laycock did you want to say something?
[Mr Laycock:] thanks Mr chairman an or between one and two and an and between two and three please.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Mr E Barnett:] You want an or between one and two
[Mr Laycock:] Yes.
[Mr E Barnett:] and an and between two and three. Comments please. That's making it er or well it's or and isn't it?
[Mr Laycock:] Mr chairman that it should comply with three and one of the other two.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yeah, yes, yes, yes. Mm. I I took Mr Jewitt's contribution or comment really on that to to almost confirm the way in which you suggested the additional wording, but I paused.
[Miss D Whittaker:] I'm sorry chair [LAUGHTER] Michael Jewitt, Hambleton. I'm sorry chairman, you've lost me there I
[Mr E Barnett:] Well you said that er as I recall, that if you had a major proposal say for example within the centre of Easingwold,
[Miss D Whittaker:] Yes, yes of course.
[Mr E Barnett:] then you would take account of environmental issues. What Mr Laycock is suggesting is that a proposal will significantly improve or
[Miss D Whittaker:] Yeah.
[Mr E Barnett:] so you've the flexibility there.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Yeah well I I would suggest that criterion three is perhaps implicit in the other policies of the plan and may not be
[Mr E Barnett:] Yeah.
[Miss D Whittaker:] needed
[Mr E Barnett:] Yeah.
[Miss D Whittaker:] in any event.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mm. Yeah. Alright.
[Mr Laycock:] Mr chairman if we do leave out number three it would be suggests that one and two are exceptions to the rest of the policies.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Mm.
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes.
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Mr E Barnett:] Yeah. We we take the point. Mr I think we can sorry Professor Lock.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Professor David Lock:] David Lock sir, it's like a game of poker this, I wasn't sure how long to sit there with my face straight.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Professor David Lock:] Erm the fact of the matter is sir as you'll have detected from today's earlier discussions it rather suits me policy I twelve because it gives a local authority the ability to plan for employment development in addition to their I five allocation. Erm however erm it it does sound as though it's one of these policies where as I suspected and said earlier today that it really doesn't have any effect on anything and it's probably something that could be erm crossed out and nobody would even notice it had gone. However as the you've heard so much needed
[Mr E Barnett:] Mm.
[Professor David Lock:] provision for employment land made under policy I five. And that would put into that policy the flexibility that we have been given orally today and which Selby and myself and I think Richmondshire I'm not sure, were were erm seeking for a local plan level determination. Thank you.
[Miss D Whittaker:] [whispering] Mr Curtis. []
[Mr E Barnett:] Mr Curtis?
[speaker001:] Thank you chairman, David Curtis, York City Council. Just just a little bit concerned about the suggestion that I twelve might actually be dropped in that it is my understanding and Mr Potter hopefully will confirm this, that in calculating the land requirements of I five, he has specifically excluded
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes.
[speaker001:] activities that would be covered by I twelve, therefore if you removed I twelve you would require recalculation of the
[Mr E Barnett:] Yeah.
[speaker001:] areas under I five.
[Mr E Barnett:] I think if I was about say Professor Lock that if I twelve was dispensed with you might notice a difference in terms of the application of I five.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you. Can we move now to summing up by North Yorkshire? Yes, alright. And there was the er question which we posed at two o'clock, which was your reaction, reflections on the method of calculation of land provision that Professor Lock floated this morning.
[Mr David Potter:] Er David Potter, North Yorkshire County Council. I was rather hoping you'd forgotten that one. As as I see it er it's and I I may be corrected on this, Professor Lock's hypothesis is that we over-provide land and then limit release once an
[Mr E Barnett:] Yes.
[Mr David Potter:] agreed level of jobs is achieved. Erm having considered this, I think that what we've tried to do in the economic activity projections is to try and estimate job need and to try and balance that with an appropriate level of provision to meet that need. If we were to deliberately over-provide, then I think it would be difficult to put a brake on this once a certain level of jobs had been reached, once the land is committed, there is a certain certainty attached to that commitment and I wonder how that would sit with the er guidance on development plans.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Mm.
[Mr E Barnett:] Mm.
[Mr David Potter:] Er secondly, land could be allocated to meet a range of needs in a variety of locations and after monitoring, if we had met a certain level of job targets, those jobs may be on a limited number of sites. We may be in the position where the jobs are not necessarily all in the right place. All the sites that are left are those which are better related to the urban areas or where the needs are. Erm market demand will take the easier site to develop first. Er and thirdly I think I've covered that already, it's it perhaps fails to provide the certainty which we the development plan system is supposed now to to.
[Mr E Barnett:] I think it might tax the policy writers' ingenuity to write it.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Mr David Potter:] I think the the problem that we've already tried to address today is how to calculate the need.
[Miss D Whittaker:] Mm.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you. Now do you want to round up.
[Mr Terry Heselton:] Thank you chairman. Ken Williamson, North Yorkshire County Council. Chairman, I don't really want to say very much er by way of rounding up I think that we've had a very significant er debate here today, there's been a lot of discussion on very important issues, erm I think throughout that we we've managed to get er a certain number of of issues really er in my view at least anyway sorted out. Erm what I would ask the panel to to look at first of all is the fact that the erm the proposals for I five and I twelve appear to be largely acceptable over quite a large area of the the county. We've heard erm quite a lot of support from most of the Districts er and there's been no er particular sort of opposition to to what we've been proposing er in those particular areas from any other source. Now Greater York chairman, er we've had an interesting discussion this morning, the, what I would say there is the allocation of a hundred and forty five hectares to Greater York is in fact the product of several years of of quite detailed study by the Greater York authorities on on a joint basis. Er a lot of effort's been put into it, er we believe that it is erm certainly feasible, it's consistent with the local strategy of restraint within this alteration is is placed and again the figure is is supported by all the the Greater York authorities. Er I think it's also worth noting again chairman here that er in fact most of the hundred and forty five hectares that we've been talking about er is in fact already committed
[Mr E Barnett:] Mm.
[Mr Terry Heselton:] in in some way or other. Perhaps I could just inject here the the one of the more recent elements of the discussion which was the er issue of er changing worker densities er to calculate land requirements. Erm in in the context of Greater York, should you wish to to base your recommendations on er such a change, erm I don't believe that would cause the County Council any problems, and you heard from round the table that I think the the districts are quite happy on on that score as well. On the issue of Selby which er took quite a lot of time er I think it was an important area er bearing in mind the different views that have been expressed. I think really I can only repeat the County Council's position here chairman that we we do have sympathy with er the District Council's position and the particular problems that the District Council have to face. Nevertheless having said that, er I would say that the County Council's moved as far as it believes it possibly can do to to meeting some of the requests of the the district in providing what we consider a generous, and what other people might consider a overly generous allocation of land. We don't feel we could really realistically go any further within the context of the strategy again with the alterations it is placed within. Chairman I think it is important in setting the level of provision, erm that there is in fact a need to balance the requirement for flexibility against the the risk of over-provision and the consequences of that. Erm the County Council believes that its position is i is more or less correct in terms of the balances that
[Mr E Barnett:] Mhm.
[Mr Terry Heselton:] need to be achieved there. I was pretty happy actually this morning to hear er Mr Cunnane almost agreeing with us on our figure. Erm I I know it was in the context of a a question you posed to him that er if he had in fact er accepted the County Council's housing figures er that would have been an appropriate hundred and twenty two hectares would have been appropriate er on the employment side. On Harrogate, erm I think the discussions have clarified a lot of the the sort of outstanding issues that that er were between perhaps the County Council and erm Professor Lock, er not so much between ourselves and Harrogate, although we have the the issue, and I think if I read it right, this could well be er the only issue that is between us in the Harrogate area, the issue of the strategic sites. Er we appear sort of miraculously [LAUGHTER] to have [] got round all the other ones, er to
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Mr Terry Heselton:] fair bit of er Mr Potter's involvement on our part. Richmondshire, chairman I I think we er dealt with that fairly fairly readily, erm I th, a change if you were to recommend that er to meet the district's case, erm I don't think that would be likely to cause any any harm to the County Council's strategy and er that's exactly what Mr Potter er did say not too long ago. I don't really want to to comment on the last [LAUGHTER] issue [] really, I think we've probably said enough on that, er the the issue of the effect on West Yorkshire. We certainly don't believe that that will will be the case erm, I suspect personally that er their own policies and proposals probably have more harm [LAUGHTER] in in the issue on the issues of urban regeneration of perhaps North Yorkshire as well. Thank you chairman.
[Mr E Barnett:] Thank you very much. Er thank you very much for your contribution today I, we've found it extremely useful. Erm for those who we shall not see tomorrow, may I thank you for your presence, your contributions, that's Mr Cunnane, Mr Laycock and Mr Girt. Thank you very much. The rest of you I'll see you in the morning at ten o'clock. [recording ends]