EAST RIDING LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK

Transport DPD Issues and Options consultation of October 2006

March 2010

CONTENTS

1. Introduction 2

2. The Issues and Options Consultation 3

3. Responses to the Issues and Options Consultation 4 Chapter 2: The Core Strategy 4 Chapter 3: Purpose of the Transport DPD 4 Chapter 4: The Relationship between the DPD and other guidance 5 Chapter 5: Protecting land for future Transport networks and facilities 5 Chapter 6: Parking Standards 8 Chapter 7: Dealing with Transport issue from new development 11 Chapter 8: Adopting other Transport policies 13 Appendices 1 & 2 16 Question SA1 16 4. Appendices 1.Table of Responses and Comments 15 3. List of transport schemes not being safeguarded through the LDF 240

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 1

1 Introduction

1.1 This report describes the process and results of the consultation exercise carried out in October/November 2006 on the ‘Issues and Options’ stage of the Transport Development Plan Document (DPD) of the East Riding Local Development Framework.

1.2 The consultation was required by Regulation 25 of the 2004 Local Development Framework Regulations as part of the process leading to formal adoption of the DPD. It was undertaken in accordance with the programme and timetable set out in the Local Development Scheme at the time for the preparation of the East Riding Local Development Framework.

1.3 In addition, the consultation followed the methodology set out in the submitted Statement of Community Involvement, which is available to view on our website- www.eastriding.gov.uk/planning/ldf/.

1.4 Since this consultation, as part of a wider restructure of the LDF, the Transport DPD is not now being progressed. This document presents, publicly, the responses to the previous consultation so that they can be used to inform development of various elements of the DPD that are now being progressed in the Core Strategy, Allocations DPD, and proposed supplementary planning documents. A list of transport schemes not being safeguarded through the LDF is also presented with brief reasons why.

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 2 2 The Issues and Options Consultation

2.1 The consultation of October/November 2006 was based on a prepared document (the Transport DPD Issues and Options booklet), which was sent to selected individuals and bodies, including all the town and parish councils in the East Riding. Press notices and posters were also used to inform the general public that the exercise was in progress, with the booklet being freely available to anyone who wanted it. A copy of the Transport DPD Issues and Options booklet was also placed on the Council’s website.

2.2 More than 1500 organisations and individuals included in the East Riding Local Development Framework List of Consultees received a booklet, or a CD version of it. This list was drawn up in accordance with the Town and County Planning (Local Development) Regulations 2004 and includes "specific consultation bodies" - for example, the Yorkshire and Humber Regional Assembly and Government bodies, such as English Nature or the Highways Agency. Because both the Government and East Riding of Yorkshire Council are keen to ensure that the Local Development Framework reflects a broad cross-section of community interest, including traditionally hard-to- reach groups, a large number of "general consultation bodies" was consulted, representing voluntary groups, ethnic minorities, religious groups, disabled persons and business community representatives. They included Age Concern, The Gypsy Council, Churches Together, The Learning Disability Partnership and Business Solutions. The full list of consultees is attached as Appendix 2 to this report.

2.3 A series of meetings was to be held at four different venues throughout the East Riding for all town and parish councils but, unfortunately, one of these meetings (at Driffield) had to be cancelled due to unforeseen circumstances. Twenty-four out of a possible 168 councils attended the other three events.

2.4 Arrangements were also made to provide the Transport DPD Issues and Options booklet in alternative formats in accordance with the Council's Equal Opportunities Policy, but there were no requests to supply the document in any other form.

2.5 Responses were received from 93 of the consultees, which equates to a response rate of about 6%.

2.6 All replies were analysed and entered on to a database, which took the form of a large matrix and this is included at Appendix 1 of this report. The matrix is set out in the same order that topics appeared in the Issues and Options consultation booklet to ease understanding. It identifies each respondent, together with a copy of each reply (relevant to the topic under consideration at that point in the Table), a summary of the Council’s response and a recommended course of action.

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 3 3 Responses to the Issues and Options Consultation

3.1 The analysis in this chapter is structured around the four themes and thirteen questions set out in the Issues and Options consultation document. It summarises the responses and puts forward options based on what they say and what may be possible, bearing in mind other legal, technical and policy issues. As previously stated, the detailed table of responses on which this summary analysis is based, is included at Appendix 1 of this report.

3.2 Not surprisingly, replies varied widely according to the interests and responsibilities of the individuals and organisations concerned. Much valuable information was given by the respondents and the opinions expressed have provided an essential background and input to inform development of various elements of the DPD that are now being progressed in the Core Strategy, Allocations DPD, and proposed supplementary planning documents.

Chapter 2: The Core Strategy

3.3 Only two respondents made comments on the core strategy chapter and both were supportive, though one of them felt that there should be more support for cycling. Later in the consultation replies, but not in response to this specific part of the consultation booklet two respondents considered that the Joint Structure Plan could not be used as the core strategy. Whilst it was accepted that in the longer term a new core strategy written specifically for the Local Development Framework will have to be adopted, the JSP (which is a very recent strategic planning document) could reasonably be used to set the direction for Planning in the East Riding in the meantime. This approach was agreed by the Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber before work began. However, as part of a restructure of the LDF, production of the LDF Core Strategy has now been prioritised.

3.4 The second issue, cycling, was mentioned regularly in response to later sections of the Issues and Options document and is thus referred to later in this report. It can be said at the outset, however, that cycling will continue to be supported in the LDF and in the Local Transport Plan.

Chapter 3: Purpose of the Transport Development Plan Document

3.5 This chapter of the Issues and Options booklet referred to the question of 'Planning Gain' for transport-related issues. However, the only comment made in respect of the chapter (on paragraph 3.2) referred instead to the policies of the DPD not being effective in reducing traffic in Goole – which is nothing to do with Planning Gain per se. Nevertheless, the comment is not entirely agreed as the aim of the DPD, which is based on LTP2, was to see a reduction of traffic overall and this would help with the situation in Goole, as it would in many other places. It is, though, accepted that Goole town centre does have a specific issue with traffic delays that are related to the railway level crossing and to the moving bridges in the docks – a problem which would be difficult to remove completely due to the historic layout of the whole town.

Chapter 4: The Relationship Between The Transport DPD And Other Guidance

3.6 Two responses referred to procedural issues but generally welcomed the document. As a result of the first of these comments, references to the regional ‘Yorkshire and Humber Plan’ will be strengthened within the LDF.

Chapter 5: Protecting Land For Future Transport Networks And Facilities

3.7 This chapter contained several paragraphs to introduce the first set of specific questions on which we requested opinions. It explained that a large number of Transport schemes still have land protected in existing local plans and that, whilst some should perhaps be retained, others could have their protection removed due to the schemes not meeting modern criteria. The chapter also explained that although the 'open countryside' designation in development plans is currently used

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 4 to protect some Transport schemes, this could be seen as a weak form of protection because some countryside development (which may compromise such schemes) could be allowed in certain circumstances. Views were thus requested on this issue.

3.8 A number of new Transport schemes were also proposed for protection due to their inclusion in LTP2. Whether or not these should be protected and exactly how their protection should be shown graphically on the accompanying maps in the LDF (by a 'band of interest'; a narrow line or a symbol) was the subject of specific questions.

3.9 Five respondents made ten separate comments on these introductory paragraphs. Most (6) were either neutral or supportive. The others stressed the need to consult the Highways Agency where appropriate and to continue protecting land for Park and Ride sites around Hull.

Question T1: Are there any other issues, not mentioned, that we should take into account when deciding which transport schemes to protect from conflicting development? For example, do other proposals such as public rights of way and roadside commercial development need protecting?

3.10 Twenty-two responses referred to the need to protect public rights of way, even though many acknowledged that they were already protected under specific legislation. Four specifically referred to the need to include footpaths and cycle-ways in new road schemes, or to improve safety arrangements where they already cross existing, busy roads.

3.11 Four comments referred to the need to maintain access to existing roadside commercial developments such as village shops, or the few lay-by traders that there are in the East Riding. In general, though, it was accepted that the location of new development near transport routes is a matter for other strands of planning policy rather than for this Development Plan Document.

3.12 A number of issues were each referred to by a single comment, namely: the importance of aviation to the East riding in a general sense; the need to protect land between the Hedon bypass and Saltend roundabout (no reason given); the need for traffic management schemes in Bridlington (that would not need land to be protected); the need to allow more rural development to improve the justification for more investment in rural transport; support for road freight, but also the protection of sites to facilitate other forms of freight carriage and; the need to protect land for large-scale projects in order to demonstrate a high level of commitment to central government.

3.13 In terms of the LDF, most of these issues require no further action, either because they do not require land to be safeguarded, or because they are contrary to general planning policy. The final two issues listed above (inter-modal freight sites and large-scale future transport schemes) do, however, merit action in identifying and protecting land. Other matters, such as support for the public rights of way network, will be referred to other officers within the Council to inform them of the public’s support for those specific areas of their work.

3.14 Thirteen respondents had no comment on Question T1.

Question T2: Do you have any comments on the proposed list of Transport Schemes?

3.15 Twenty-one respondents had no comment at all (or were generally supportive of all proposals). Fifty-nine others made comments on some twenty-three issues and of those fifty-nine, four later sent in additional, joint comments through a solicitor (about the Hull-Beverley-York railway proposal). These four responses have not been counted twice

3.16 The railway issue drew most comments, with sixteen being in favour. Nine were opposed to the concept, but only if certain specific interests were affected. Subject to those being satisfactorily dealt with, it would appear that all but two of the objections to it would be resolved, with one comment being neutral - neither for nor against.

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 5 3.17 The second largest area of comment was also concerned with the Hull to York transport corridor in general, with eight respondents being in favour of improvements to the A1079 road and one against.

3.18 Four responses were in favour of the Goole Inter-modal Terminal and three in favour of improvements to the A164 Beverley-Humber Bridge road. Two respondents felt that land alongside Swinemoor Lane in Beverley, which in effect forms the Beverley Eastern Bypass, merited some sort of protection due to its future role in the Beverley Integrated Transport Plan, whilst two others were in general agreement with that plan overall (though one of these felt that the Park and Ride site should be relocated). Three were in favour of a new Brough Station car park and two wanted to protect a Park and Ride site on the edge of Hull that would serve Holderness.

3.19 All other comments drew only a single response and can be summarised as follows: public transport in rural areas is poor; the physical condition of East Riding roads is poor; there is a need for more traffic management measures; there should be protection of the Hornsea Rail Trail for possible future transport use; the Transport DPD should protect land for LTP2 schemes only; land within the Goole Docks Estate should be protected for a new riverside quay; the Keyingham and Middleton-on-the-Wolds bypasses should not be protected; a Cottingham Southern Bypass route should be protected; land for widening Victoria Road in Beverley should be safeguarded; the Beverley North Eastern Bypass should extend to the B1248 Malton road; a new junction should be built on the A614 at the Ruston Parva crossroads; an extension to Howden Station car park should be safeguarded and finally; railway infrastructure that it may be important to keep (from a Transport Planning point of view) but which is beyond the control of the Planning System should be indicated in the LDF.

3.20 The detailed comments for each of these responses can be seen in the matrix that forms Appendix 2 of this document. However, it can be said in summary, that in view of the comments received, it is considered action should be taken to safeguard land for the Hull to Beverley to York railway line due to potential threats to the route. In the same corridor, it was considered that a feasibility study should be carried out into an A1079 Road Safety and Accessibility Study, which would eventually determine whether future versions of the LDF would need to protect land for highway improvements along that road. Land for the following schemes, which did not receive adverse comment and which were generally supported should also be safeguarded: Park and Ride sites for Hull; the Goole Inter-modal Terminal; the Beverley Integrated Transport Plan; a link between the existing Beverley North Eastern Bypass and the B1248 and; a Howden Station car park extension. In addition, it was agreed that railway infrastructure, important from a Planning point of view, should be identified - either on the Proposals Map or by means of an informal inset plan within the LDF. Other individual suggestions are not being pursued, as they are contrary to policy, beyond the scope of this DPD, or do not require safeguarding. A new car park at Brough Station has now been completed and opened in December 2007.

Question T3: Do you feel that the constraint on new development provided by policies for ‘the Countryside' adequately protect land for future Transport Schemes?

3.21 Eight respondents had no comment on this question, thus their replies could not be used in determining a future course of action with regard to the safeguarding issue.

3.22 Whilst the majority (25) felt that existing Planning policies (particularly Joint Structure Plan policy DS5) provided enough protection, a significant minority (10) felt that more was required. Of those ten, seven considered that stronger safeguarding would be preferable because protected routes could still be adversely affected by types of development that might be permitted in the countryside as exemptions to structure plan policy. Three others simply felt that Planning policy could not be trusted to protect a non-defined route, as consents are sometimes granted in contravention of prevailing policy. It is worth noting that one of those 10 respondents, who felt that reliance on current policy was insufficient, was a government agency.

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 6 3.23 The conclusion that has been drawn from these responses is that where a route is known with some certainty, it is probably safer to denote the whole of that route because, usually, routes cannot easily be changed – though they can easily be compromised or lost altogether. For example, a new road or railway line cannot easily ‘sidestep’ a new development - perhaps constructed quite legally - because the large-radius curves involved in such schemes would make this impossible. In other cases, where a route or the location of a transport proposal could easily be adjusted without causing detriment to a scheme, the use of symbols on the Proposals Map (relying on the 'Countryside' policies for general protection) may still provide sufficient safeguarding.

Question T4: Should we take forward a different option, for example by withdrawing protection for a proposed Transport Scheme and/or protecting additional ones?

3.24 Most of the thirty-nine respondents felt that the approach set out in the Issues and Options document needed no change and that Transport Schemes should be protected. Twenty responded with a straight 'no' to the question, whilst another eight had no comment.

3.25 Three individual replies made positive suggestions about particular issues, though none of them needed land to be protected for their completion. These were: to upgrade the Goole-Knottingley railway line, extending the West Yorkshire 'Metro' scheme to Snaith; to increase teleworking, thus reducing the need to travel and; to put more emphasis on re-using existing transport infrastructure.

3.26 Two respondents felt that protection of land for the Hull to Beverley to York railway proposal should be extended to critical areas beyond the East Riding boundary and whilst this may be desirable, it has to be an issue for the relevant local authorities, namely Ryedale District Council and the City of York Council, rather than the East Riding of Yorkshire Council. A single, contrary opinion considered that all route protection for this scheme should be withdrawn. Hull City Council also drew attention to the need to protect more bus-based Park and Ride sites on the fringe of the city and four other organisations referred to the need to protect various schemes, but without actually identifying what they were.

3.27 In essence, the conclusions that may be drawn from the replies to this question are that, overall, people seem happy to see the Planning System used to safeguard land for future Transport schemes and that, by and large, the schemes listed in the Issues and Options document were about right. Further Park and Ride sites should, however, be identified and protected, as requested by Hull City Council. Ryedale District Council should be approached about protecting critically-important pieces of land for the railway proposal near Stamford Bridge (and the City of York Council about an equally critical part of the route near Haxby).

Question T5: When protecting land for Transport Schemes, do you have a view on how we should designate the land we want to safeguard on the Proposals Map, with either a 'band of interest' or a narrower line?

3.28 There was only a little support (two respondents) for the use of a narrow line to indicate safeguarded land, as most appreciated that absolute certainty with regard to any detailed route was impossible so far in advance. Accordingly, the majority of responses (21) suggested the use of a 'band of interest' as most appropriate. A substantial minority (13) felt that either could be used, as appropriate, so that where a precise site is known, blight is kept to a minimum. Eleven respondents had no view on the matter.

3.29 As a result of this, it is felt that a band of interest should be the norm when indicating safeguarded land on the Proposals Map but that, where firmer details are known in advance, a more precise designation could be shown for a whole route.

Chapter 6: Parking Standards

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 7 3.30 Chapter 6 summarised the issues relevant to the setting of appropriate car parking standards in the East Riding. In particular, the chapter acknowledged that its rural nature, its large scale, its remoteness (often) and the large number of dispersed settlements (many without public transport services) mean that many residents have no alternative to the use of a private car for their day-to- day travel needs.

3.31 The chapter went on to explain that the level of parking to be provided in new developments would have to be based on government and regional planning guidance, both of which have the aim of limiting travel by private car in favour of public transport, cycling and walking – which means that new parking provision would have to be at relatively low levels.

3.32 Whilst the reasons for this are understood and supported, the Issues and Options document suggested that, due to the nature of the East Riding, very tight controls were only appropriate where realistic alternatives to the car were available – ie. mainly in the urban areas. In rural and coastal areas the chapter proposed slightly higher parking provision, up to the maximum allowed by regional planning guidance. The detailed thresholds and required parking provision were then set out in tables 6.1 and 6.2 of the Issues and Options Document.

3.33 Six respondents commented on these background introductory paragraphs, making 14 separate points, but covering only five issues.

3.34 One was opposed to the whole principle of increasing parking standards in any part of the East Riding due to concerns that this would be unsustainable and would switch housing demand away from Hull (which in Planning policy terms should be the focus of most new development of all types). This response seemed to make little allowance for the different characteristics of this large rural authority. All other replies were generally in favour of the pragmatic need to increase parking provision in different parts of the East Riding area.

3.35 It is concluded, therefore, that for the East Riding the general car parking standards in the Issues and Options document were acceptable.

3.36 The only other points that were made related to the need to improve public transport generally to improve people's travel choices and not to require railway station car parks to have a maximum number of spaces because more spaces and easier parking at stations would be likely to lead to the greater use of trains. A final plea was for the parking standards to be set out in greater detail, perhaps in the form of a Supplementary Planning Document. It is considered that there may be merit in both these last two suggestions. Consequently, a 'Parking SPD' should be given future consideration and it should be made clear that station car parks should not have a maximum car parking ‘ceiling’ due to the general wish to see greater use of passenger trains.

Question T6: PPG3 requires a maximum parking threshold of 1.5 car parking spaces on average for each dwelling. We are proposing to apply this standard to only DS1-3 settlements1. For other places (DS4 and below), we intend to use a maximum of 2 car parking spaces to reflect higher car ownership levels in villages and the general lack of public transport. Are we taking the right approach by increasing the maximum car parking threshold for residential development in DS4 (and below) settlements?

3.37 This topic (perhaps unsurprisingly) drew a large response, with sixty-seven comments in all. Twenty-three were in agreement with the idea of increasing parking provision in rural areas and another seven gave qualified support. The qualifications mentioned were mostly concerned with public transport, implying that if this were better, car parking requirements could be lower. Six other respondents made the same point about public transport explicitly. Other people pointed out that more parking provision in rural areas would inevitably mean more traffic travelling to and fro - rather than less - and that this would result in damage to the ambience of villages.

1 ‘DS’ refers to Joint Structure Plan policies that define the settlement hierarchy – from regional centres (DS1) to rural settlements (DS4) and the countryside (DS5) Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 8

3.38 In contrast to the 30 expressions of support, 22 felt that, for various reasons, the level of parking provision in rural areas ought to be higher still, with some suggesting that the higher level should be right across the board and refer to the urban areas too.

3.39 Not many of the respondents had 'no comment' on this issue, though there were five of these. Finally, three responses did not agree with the standards set out in the Issues and Options Document, saying that traffic should be reduced and that less scarce land would have to be wasted on providing space for cars if parking standards were lower than set out in the consultation document.

3.40 Overall, from these responses, it is concluded that the level of parking provision suggested in the Issues and Options document is probably about right. In any event, it could not be increased further without being open to challenge from both regional and national levels. That being so, the large number of people wishing to see greater parking provision will have to accept that by taking the pragmatic approach that it has (ie. by going for the highest level of parking provision within the limits set down in the Regional Spatial Strategy) the Council has gone as far as it can.

3.41 One or two respondents referred, in their replies, to the need for a further document to set out the parking requirements more clearly, for example mentioning railway station parking and providing standards for different types of residential developments. There may be some merit in the suggestion to publish a Supplementary Planning Document covering Parking Standards and consideration should be given to this in due course - though in the meantime the standards that were set out in the Issues and Options Document will suffice and appear to be generally acceptable.

Question T7: Are we taking the right approach in adopting the least restrictive parking supply standards for non-residential developments in the Yorkshire and Humber Plan to reflect higher car ownership levels in villages and the lack of public transport?

3.42 This question was, in a sense, a repeat of Question T6 therefore (perhaps inevitably) the response was similar - though with slightly fewer responses (52 compared with 67). The great majority were in support (42 replies), though eight of them qualified their response more or less as described in paragraph 3.37, above.

3.43 As with Question T6, some (3) wanted to see higher levels of parking, particularly in residential developments. Two others felt that it may be set at too high a level in the Issues and Options document and one wanted parking provision linked to public transport provision (which is what the proposed standards actually try to do).

3.44 The conclusion to be drawn from this response is that the approach set out in the Issues and Options document is generally well-supported and should be continued, but with railway stations being identified in the standards as an exception (so that there should be no limit on the maximum number of car parking spaces to be provided).

Chapter 7: Dealing With Transport Issues Arising From New Development

3.45 The introductory paragraphs to Chapter 7 described the effects of congestion on the East Riding's roads, together with the Council's duties to keep traffic moving and to plan sustainable communities. The chapter described how the Council is attempting to deal with population and traffic growth through the Planning system in a 'joined-up' approach. This includes putting new development where the need to travel can be reduced, with the infrastructure likely to be needed to support it also being considered at the outset.

3.46 Ways of ensuring that new infrastructure could be provided when and where needed (using Planning Conditions and Planning Obligations) were described. For example, the system of

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 9 'commuted sums' was explained, whereby developers can be asked to fund measures to take account of the impacts of their developments.

3.47 There were five respondents to this chapter, which formed the prologue to proposed policy TDPD1 and Questions T8 and T9. In essence, they appeared to endorse the general line that the Council is taking (for example locating new development near existing or proposed transport facilities) and highlighted particular approaches that might be considered useful in taking it forward.

3.48 The need to improve services such as public transport, so as to get people out of their cars, was stressed by one respondent and this is certainly one of the Council's basic aims (both in this current exercise and through the provisions of the local transport plan). Another put forward the potential role of 'car clubs' in reducing travel demand which, it was suggested, would also be reduced if more 'Green Travel Plans' were required as a result of development proposals (one reply). A further single reply put forward the idea that the level of commuted sums should not be reduced where a development happens to be close to an existing transport facility, since that development would still create travel needs in the wider area.

3.49 In this section of the document, there was no reaction to the proposed policy TDPD1 itself, as this was the subject of Question T9 - see below. (TDPD1 set out the Council's intention to link Land- Use and Transport issues in its Planning decisions and to use appropriate tools to bring about better environmental conditions).

Question T8: Do you have any comments on our intention to place Planning Conditions on some new developments or make use of Planning Obligations to finance Transport improvements for all road users and not to deal solely with congestion?

3.50 Seventeen, out of fifty-seven comments in all, expressed general agreement with this approach, whilst twelve had no comment.

3.51 The other main concerns were that the requirement for (and use of) commuted sums had to be completely transparent (8 responses) - which is of course a legal requirement. Whilst three parish councils considered that commuted sums should only be spent in the parish where the development was to take place, two others acknowledged that with Transport issues, the actual spending might need to be some distance from the development itself. In addition, five consultees pointed out that expenditure should not just be on road infrastructures, but should be on whatever mode of travel might be most appropriate to mitigate the problem - for example on station facilities.

3.52 One individual felt there should be no commuted sums as they are a burden on business and, in the same vein, three developers agreed with the idea that they should be lower for developments close to existing transport facilities. Finally, three respondents felt that Transport-related commuted sums should be spent on Transport issues only, whereas one felt that they should be spent on anything that the local area might happen to need, whether Transport-related or not.

3.53 The consensus seems to support the Council's general approach, including the need for transparency, which is a concern to some. The issues that perhaps need to be developed further are for commuted sums to be available for any relevant transport solution (not just roads) and that for commuted sums raised as a result of transport-related problems, they could be spent well way from the parish of origin as long as it helped to resolve the problems caused by the development in question. In that same vein, there was no support, other than from the development industry itself, for any reduction in contributions where development might be close to existing Transport facilities.

Question T9: Do you have any comments on our proposed policy TDPD 1?

(Proposed Policy TDPD1 stated: “The Council will take a joined-up approach to transport and land use planning. We will aim to locate development so it is easily accessible Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 10 from existing transport networks and minimise the need for travel. We will consider the impact of generated traffic from new development when making planning decisions and resist development where it causes worse congestion, unless there are significant benefits for the wider context, including the economy, road safety and the environment. We will use Planning Conditions and Obligations to mitigate Transport issues arising from new development to benefit the community and all road users.”)

3.54 There was a high level of agreement with this policy. Thirty responses agreed with it as it stood and a further fourteen had no comment. Of the other thirteen comments, a number expressed particular concerns and others suggested alterations to the wording of the policy to make it tighter in some areas.

3.55 The matters of concern were: that commuted sums should not be used to deal with Transport issues, but only used for community benefit (1 comment) [it is the Council's view that solving Transport problems is a community benefit]; that the policy is disjointed and conflicts with other Development Plan Documents (1 comment) [this view contrasts with another from a Regional Agency that considers the policy delivers a joined-up approach]; that the policy should specifically refer to the Strategic Highway Network [this is not considered necessary or desirable]; that all new housing development should consider the use of Park and Ride to serve it (1 comment) and should have 20 mph speed limits throughout, with 'STOP' lines at the exit (1 comment) [it is not felt that Park and Ride is always appropriate and road safety is dealt with through other legislation - though it is always a consideration in estate design].

3.56 Responses that perhaps do merit changes to the wording of the policy relate to: the need for commuted sums to be spent on any mode of travel if it helps solve the problem and not just on roads (3 comments); commuted sums dealing with travel problems perhaps needing to be spent well beyond the parish from which the contribution stems (1 comment); the need for the policy to refer specifically to public transport accessibility (3 comments) and; the policy needing to clarify that proposed new development which reduces road safety or has environmental impacts will be resisted and that the caveat for relaxing this requirement should include improvements to all three aspects listed in the policy, namely the economy, road safety and the environment (one comment) and not just to any one of them.

Chapter 8: Adopting Other Transport Policies

3.57 This chapter of the Issues and Options Document was concerned with freight and road safety issues. It also explained that, by transferring some of the policies from the second Local Transport Plan (LTP2) into the Transport DPD, they would become part of the formal development plan, rather than just 'material considerations' - which could make them stronger.

3.58 In particular, the chapter explained how the Council is concerned about the volume of freight that passes through its area (mainly on the roads) to and from the ports of Hull and Goole. The wish to get some of this switched to other modes such as rail and water was explained and possible opportunities for the future were identified, for example at Goole, Melton, Paull and on the Hull to Scarborough railway line. Other successful examples, where freight is already being moved by means other than by road (keeping many lorries off the roads in many counties) were described - notably the bulk movement of coal and steel away from Hull and Goole Docks and the importation of sand to the Goole glass factory.

3.59 A policy for freight was introduced as follows:

Policy TDPD2: Freight. New development will seek to achieve inter-modal freight transfer and encourage the use of more sustainable forms of transporting freight such as by rail, water and the use of fewer road-based trips within the supply chain.

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 11 3.60 There were two expressions of general support for the aim of shifting freight towards rail, instead of using roads. A third referred to innovative types of rail freight transport that might suit the sorts of railway line to be found in parts of the East Riding, whilst a fourth made the suggestion that the Hull to Scarborough line was 'vulnerable.' Both these latter comments should be pursued - on the one hand to establish the position with regard to the latest types of freight train that are in development and, on the other, to establish what the respondent (Network Rail) meant by their use of the word 'vulnerable.'

3.61 In terms of proposed policy TDPD2, Question T10 said, "Do you have any comments on our proposed policy TDPD2, outlined above?"

3.62 The policy itself was greatly supported, with 27 of the 55 responses being in agreement and 16 having no comment. Only one actually disagreed, saying that neither rail nor water was a practical freight alternative to roads and that, instead, freight should travel off-peak on the roads - as in Europe. Whilst it is acknowledged that virtually all freight has to travel by road at some point in its delivery cycle, off-peak delivery has many problems of its own, especially with regard to noise and growing congestion issues. The fact that roads are still important and cannot be forgotten was mentioned by two people and this is agreed.

3.63 Other points to come out of the general agreement with the policy were: that a future Hull-Beverley-York railway route should be protected and made available as a freight alternative (3 comments); that water freight should be supported (3) and; that transfer sites for both rail and waterborne traffic should also be protected (1). Two final suggestions were that urban deliveries should be by means of smaller delivery vehicles and that Government pressure would be needed to bring most of these (desirable) changes about. This second point is agreed whilst on the first, the movement of large vehicles is already controlled to some extent by Traffic Orders. To enforce the use of smaller delivery vehicles in town centres of less than regional importance may be impossible and, where it has been tried before, there has been little lasting success. It is noted, however, that new research into ‘urban freight consolidation centres’ is about to be undertaken in Birmingham and that the situation regarding delivery transfer facilities could change at some future date as a result.2

3.64 The second section of Chapter 8 related to the accessibility of facilities and services from new developments, especially for the more vulnerable traveller not using an enclosed motor vehicle. It explained that although car ownership is higher in the East Riding than many other places due to its dispersed rural nature and in some parts its relative wealth, one in five people do not own or have access to a vehicle. The Issues and Options document considered that this was a good reason to promote the alternatives of public transport, cycling and walking, since the latter two modes would also be beneficial to health, be inexpensive and have minimal impact on the environment. These introductory sentences to Policy TDPD3 and Question T11 drew one message of general support.

Policy TDPD3 stated: “Vulnerable Road Users and Accessibility. New development will give priority and provide for improved access and facilities for vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and people with disabilities to the highest standards and support for more sustainable forms of transport, such as bus facilities and services.”

Question T11 said: "Do you have any comments on our proposed policy TDPD3 as outlined?"

3.65 Twenty-six of the sixty-four comments made were in agreement with the suggested policy and another fourteen had no comment. No-one disagreed.

3.66 There was general support, too, for better provision for pedestrians and cyclists and for public transport (6 comments each) plus a further two responses which said that the policy should refer

2 Article in ‘Planning’, 7th December 2007 (www.planningresource.co.uk) Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 12 to all forms of public transport, not just roads. This latter point is agreed and the policy should be amended. Two respondents were pleased to see a policy dealing with vulnerable travellers and whilst another felt that horse riders should be added to the list, two more believed that motorcyclists should be removed from it, as they are neither safe nor sustainable. Two felt that a blanket 20 mph speed limit should apply to all residential developments, though one felt that signage associated with traffic management measures can itself be dangerously confusing.

3.67 One respondent felt that the principles embodied in the policy should be applied to existing developments to improve the current access and safety position. In fact, this is what LTP2 attempts to do, whereas this DPD sets out the Council's expectations in respect of all new development from now on. It would be hoped that by improving the situation in new developments, there would be 'spin-off' improvements for existing situations. The final comment that was made referred to the need (expressed previously) that any commuted sums should be spent appropriately and transparently - which, of course, they should and would be.

Policy TDPD4 stated: “Making The Impacts From New Development Safer. New development will incorporate road safety (including Road Safety and User Audits) and ensure that its design accords with the latest best practice and give high priority to the safety of all road users, particularly vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians, cyclists, children and people in disadvantaged areas.”

Question T12: Do you have any comments on our proposed policy TDPD4 as outlined?

3.68 The replies to this question were very similar to those for Question T11, since the two proposed policies are somewhat alike. Twenty-five respondents expressed support and 15 had no comment.

3.69 Of the rest (as before), there was support for: pedestrian/cycle facilities (3) with free cycle training for children (1); the inclusion of motor-cyclists in the list of vulnerable users (2) and of horse-riders (1); more support for public transport facilities (1); the imposition of 20mph speed restrictions in all new housing developments (2) and; the reduction of signage clutter due to the confusion that can be caused to drivers (1). The single respondent who felt that roads in residential developments should not be reduced in width as this would be more dangerous was balanced by another who felt that residential roads should always be narrower.

Question T13: Do you have any comments on our proposed requirement to improve road safety by requiring a Road Safety Audit (and in some cases a Road User Audit) for new development?

3.70 There was very strong support for the use of audits as appropriate, with twenty-nine out of forty- nine responses in favour and twelve having no comment. For various reasons, mainly concerned with the cost and length of time/complexity in preparing them, three respondents were opposed to their use. One person felt that the different types of audit needed better explanation (which can be dealt with at the next stage) and one felt that a threshold should be included in the policy, explaining when they might be required. As before, there was a call for 20 mph speed limits within residential areas (one comment) and for better road lining within them (two comments).

3.71 In view of this response, the policy is considered to be worthwhile, though a better explanation of some of the technical terms may be desirable at the next stage.

3.72 Appendices 1 & 2, forming part of the Issues and Options document, listed all the Transport schemes currently protected in the various local plans covering the East Riding together with new Transport schemes that were being put forward for protection.

3.73 The two appendices drew five observations from two respondents. One was concerned about the clarity of the maps used in the document, whilst the other four were from Hull City Council seeking clarification about which 'old' highway schemes were still required and which were not

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 13 (though they added that in their view the ‘old’ bypass schemes could be deleted, whereas the various Park and Ride sites for Beverley as well as for Hull should still be shown).

3.74 On the 'Comment Form' included with the Issues and Options consultation document there was one final question relating to the Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessment Scoping Report for the Local Development Framework. It said, “Question SA1: The Council has completed a Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment (SA/SEA) Scoping Report for the LDF. Are there any particular social, economic and environmental issues that you think the council should be aware of whilst undertaking the SA/SEA of the Transport Development Plan Document?”

3.75 This question was perhaps the least well answered in the Issues and Options consultation document and tended to be interpreted as a cue to make 'any other comments.' Inevitably, therefore, many of the comments received in response to it repeated views submitted in response to other paragraphs or questions in the consultation document – which have already been summarised above.

3.76 Nevertheless, the list of diverse issues raised is as follows (with the number of respondents making the same point shown in brackets): no comment on the question (18); in agreement with the question (5); increase the amount of hedgerow/tree planting (2); improve biodiversity and wildlife habitats (2); increase the emphasis on public transport (2); provide better rail and bus services (2); make more use of railways by dualling tracks and creating new lines (3); provide more railway station car parking (1); recognise the importance of ports (1); the basis of the Core Strategy is not agreed and there needs to be a new one (2); provide more lay-by viewing areas (1); several procedural points were made by the Government Office; more overnight lorry parks are needed (1); more cycle-ways and footpaths are needed (3); Planning Obligations should be dealt with fairly and transparently (2); cross-Hull road traffic should be reduced (1); higher building densities produce more road traffic (1); fuel cell technology will lead to more cars but with less adverse impacts (1); the transport needs of smaller settlements must not be forgotten (2); high transport costs lead to social poverty, especially in remoter areas of Holderness (1); areas of flood risk should not be developed (1); the impacts of global warming should lead to an emphasis on public transport in order to reduce car use (2).

3.77 Two respondents did actually refer to the Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment (SA/SEA). They suggested that the Transport DPD’s Sustainability Assessment should relate and cross-refer to the general SA/SEA for the Local Development Framework as a whole (1 response) and that the Transport DPD’s Sustainability Appraisal should influence choices made in the Transport DPD itself (1 reply). Both these points are accepted and those preparing the SA/SEA should be aware of this so that the document is influenced by (and influences) the Transport Development Plan Document. To encourage this process, work done on the DPD up to now should be fed into the SA/SEA process at the earliest opportunity so that it can influence that document at the outset.

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 14

APPENDIX 1

Table of Responses and Comments

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 15

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 16

Representati "Limehouse" on Number / Officers' Identification Type of Representation Made Officers' Comments Recommendations Number and Name Representati on

Chapter 1 Para 1.6 1482 1580 Paragraph 1.6 should refer to a ‘planning inspector Agreed. No action needed at rather than a ‘Public Inspector’ this stage, but correct terminology in future. Mr James Durham Observations (Hull City Council)

Chapter 2 Heading 483 1944 The Assembly welcomes the helpful reference to the Support noted. No action needed. Jenny Poxon Support overall East Riding Settlement Hierarchy as set out in (Yorkshire and the Joint Structure Plan in the introduction of the Humber Assembly) document, which sets out where new development will be directed in East Riding. The intention is to direct most new development to DS1 to DS3 settlements so that employment and housing are bought together, reducing the need to travel and therefore making better use of existing public transport services and encouraging more walking and cycling. The Assembly welcomes this approach as it clearly reflects the overarching spatial vision of the current and draft RSS.

Chapter 2 Para 2.6 1102 139 What are the plans regarding the promotion and Through LTP2, the Council will prepare Continue to support development of cycling as a mode of sustainable and develop walking and cycling action cycling in the next Transport? plans for each of the major towns across stage. (NB - Mr the East Riding. Dyason has now been provided with relevant information on cycling issues) Mr S Dyason Other (Woldgate College)

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 17 Chapter 3 Para 3.2

589 654 I also would say that the policies proposed do nothing This is not agreed, as the LDF will support Carry the general to address the problems of traffic within streets of traffic reductions generally. approach of the Issues Goole and Options document through the rest of the LDF. Enid Thompson Observations

Chapter 4 Heading 483 1943 The Yorkshire and Humber Assembly welcomes the Noted No specific action opportunity to comment on the East Riding Transport required Document: Issues and Options and to continue its involvement in the development of a coherent spatial planning framework for the region. The comments offered in this letter are intended to be within the spirit of continued and productive joint working. Jenny Poxon Observations (Yorkshire and At this stage, the Assembly’s response to the Noted No specific action Humber Assembly) consultation document is a set of officer comments. required The aim is to highlight where issues related to general conformity with the Regional Spatial Strategy (that includes the Regional Transport Strategy) may arise. We will offer further comments at the Preferred Options stage if necessary. When the Transport Document is submitted to the Secretary of State a formal Assembly view on its general conformity with the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) will need to be given.

The following officer comments are made in relation to Noted No specific action the existing Regional Spatial Strategy for the required Yorkshire & the Humber (based on a selective review of Regional Planning Guidance12 issued in December 2004) and the Draft Regional Spatial Strategy – the Yorkshire and Humber Plan (submitted to the Secretary of State in December 2005).

The comments place emphasis on the draft Regional Noted No specific action Spatial Strategy (RSS), which reinforces and develops required the general thrust of existing RSS; furthermore it is Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 18 more up to date and has significant ‘weight’ in its own right. Prior to adoption (expected late 2007), the weight attached to the draft RSS will increase once the Panel’s Report is received (expected early 2007) and also when proposed changes are published (expected Summer 2007).

Regional Spatial Strategy As you know, the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Noted No specific action Act 2004 introduced mechanisms to help ensure that required DPDs drawn up by local authorities as part of the Local Development Framework are in general conformity with the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS). The intention is to ensure that DPDs are contributing to the delivery of the RSS and that the two strands of the Development Plan for an area (the RSS and DPDs) are mutually supportive and not in conflict.

The Assembly welcomes the brief statement of the Noted Consider the ‘general need’ for conformity between the RSS and appropriateness of DPDs documents that is set out at the start of the strengthening document, which demonstrates the need for a strong references to RSS link between the LDF and the RSS. However, it is felt conformity at the next that this could generally be further explained and stage. expanded upon. Also welcomed are the references made to the draft RSS throughout the document.

In order for the Transport Document to more clearly (These follow in their appropriate sections reflect the Regional Spatial Strategy set out in both further down this table) current RSS (December 2004) and the draft RSS (Yorkshire and Humber Plan – December 2005), it is suggested that the following issues should be taken into account in the next stages of the Document’s development.

Chapter 4 Para 4.1 1482 1552 Paragraph 4.1 of the document mentions that a Noted, but it was not possible to correct The Core Strategy now Generic DC Document will cover the use of transport this as the two documents were not ready being progressed assessments and travel plans for new development. and cannot therefore be read together. allows for its Ideally, it would make sense to read this document The LDF has undergone a restructure and development and the Generic DC document together in order to get a generic DC document is no longer being management policies to Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 19 the full approach to transport being taken and to allow prepared. be read alongside its more informed comment. transport policies. Mr James Durham Observations (Hull City Council)

Chapter 5 Heading 1519 1768 Overall the Agency is not specifically aware of Noted Consult the Highways particular issues associated with any of the 'new' Agency as the Brough transport schemes, although should there be any Station Car Park* possible impact on travel patterns on the Strategic scheme progresses Ms Claire Minett Observations Highway Network (e.g. any potential local impacts on (*NB this car park was the A63 as a result of the proposed car park at Brough opened in December Railway Station) we would wish to be consulted at the 2007) (Highways Agency) earliest opportunity. 483 1949 as amended Jenny Poxon Observations Individual Schemes (Yorkshire and It should be noted that individual transport schemes The schemes listed in the Transport DPD No specific action Humber Assembly) are not set out in the current Draft RSS, so no will all help to deliver the Transport required. comment on these is offered. The DPD should Investment and Management Priorities in ensure that all schemes help to deliver the Transport Draft RSS. Investment and Management Priorities (that are based on a thematic approach in Draft RSS).

Public Transport The Assembly feels that there is a need for a greater emphasis to be placed on public transport, as reducing car use is a key theme of current and draft RSS. This is explored further in policies T2 and T3 of current RSS and YH8 C, T1, and T3 of draft RSS.

Chapter 5 Para 5.1 480 876 Agreed Noted Note support for protection of land beyond the plan period. Mrs J. Support Heathershaw (Hornsea Residents Association) 1482 1581 The word ‘plan in paragraph 5.1 should say ‘plans’. Noted No specific action

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 20 required as the Issues and Options document will not be reproduced again Mr James Durham Observations (Hull City Council)

Chapter 5 Para 5.2 480 877 Agreed Support for ending protection of some No specific action older transport schemes is noted. needed. Mrs J. Support Heathershaw (Hornsea Residents Association)

Chapter 5 Para 5.3 539 687 Sport England is pleased to note that the DPD will Support noted. No specific action allow for appropriate sport/recreation and tourism needed. Mr Henryk Support facilities to locate in the countryside (paragraph 5.3); Peterson that it will encourage more walking and cycling and (Sport England) use of public transport as sustainable forms of transport(6.3 & 8.6) - seeking to reverse the decline in walking and cycling and promote public health. 480 878 Agreed Noted No specific action needed. Mrs J. Support Heathershaw (Hornsea Residents Association)

Chapter 5 Para 5.4 480 879 Agreed Noted No specific action needed. Mrs J. Support Heathershaw (Hornsea Residents Association)

Chapter 5 Para 5.8 1482 1555 In paragraph 5.8 regarding the North Hull Park and On reflection, it may not be necessary to Continue to protect the Transport Development Plan Document Background R eport April 2010 21 Ride, it states th/at you have not seen a business see the business case. It is noted that the site of the North Hull case for the site. The funding for the scheme is being site is still required and should therefore Park and Ride Facility. provided entirely by Hull City Council and the concept be protected from conflicting has already been accepted as part of the ERYC Local development. Mr James Durham Observations Transport Plan. We therefore query why you need to (Hull City Council) see the business case. The site being protected in the document is supported however other options in the area are still under consideration. 1482 1574 We have spotted some areas where further This sentence was included to reinforce Take account of and clarification or amendment is required. In paragraph the fact that things are still evolving and consider any transport 5.8, the statement of ‘the possibility that we may need that other schemes may yet be identified, schemes as they arise land elsewhere to bring forward other Transport perhaps as part of this Transport DPD and refer to them, as Schemes not yet identified’ seems very vague and preparation process. necessary, in the LDF. Mr James Durham Observations rather defeats the aim of the document. (Hull City Council)

Question T1

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 22 465 60 More care and attention should be given in new road When new highways or alterations to No specific action schemes e.g. crossing A63 Dual carriageway on foot existing highways are proposed, either required. under the jurisdiction of the Council or others (such as the Highways Agency) the needs of walkers and cyclists are fully considered. A recent example is the construction of the Melton Grade Separated Junction on the A63 where extensive pedestrian and cycle facilities were incorporated. Mrs K. Richmond Observations (South Cave Parish Council) 248 81 The Town Council would wish to see all public rights Noted. The public rights of way network No specific action of way within the East Riding protected at all times is already protected. required. Mrs C. Hird Observations (Snaith and Cowick Parish Council) 1022 95 Yes - Public Rights Of Way need protection and more When new highways or alterations to No specific action care needs to be taken to safely accommodated existing highways are proposed, either required. Mr Graham Lenton Support existing PR of Ws in new road schemes. Too many under the jurisdiction of the Council or PR of Ws have been ruined. i.e. several PR of Ws still others (such as the Highways Agency) supposedly cross the A63 on foot! Makes them the needs of walkers and cyclists are fully impossible to use. considered. A recent example is the construction of the Melton Grade Separated Junction on the A63 where extensive pedestrian and cycle facilities were incorporated. 1413 121 Definitely need to consider roadside commercial Roadside commercial development would Give consideration to development and rights of way. Not doing so could not normally be encouraged for road whether or not roadside increase road casualties and loss of business. safety reasons and also to protect the development needs character of the open countryside - which protection in LDF. With is an issue for other DPDs, not this one. regard to PROWs, The needs of PROW users are consider the need for considered as far as reasonably possible. further segregation For example, where busy PROW's run schemes, along the along busy roads, segregated pedestrian lines of the High links have been put in place along the Hunsley example, as roadside verge - such as for the Wolds part of normal Highway Way west of High Hunsley on the B1230. Maintenance within the highway. There is no Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 23 need to protect additional non - highway land. Ms Nicola Salvidge Support (Seaton PC) 1331 141 I am in favour of all the proposals identified but would These comments are noted and will be No specific action with like to draw your attention specifically to the Well Lane given consideration through the Local regard to the LDF but bypass / Easton Roads junction area of Bridlington. Transport Plan process, which is the consider Traffic mechanism for implementing traffic Management issues management schemes and no land needs through the LTP to be safeguarded in this DPD. The process. general measures to reduce traffic levels set out in this DPD should, however, impact on this local problem area. Nicholas Gladstone Observations I live only 1 house down on Easton Road from the Well Lane junction with Easton Road and the traffic along that road is unbelievable. Through the day it takes significantly uplifted levels of traffic accessing the new garden centre at Easton Road and also of course daily to the Crematorium at Octon, Langtoft. When you overlay this with the spring summer and weekend uplifts in traffic the problem is enormous. The road infrastructure is not suitable for the high levels of traffic it now takes without traffic lights. Even at night the Well Lane road is a racetrack! When for goodness sake will traffic management and A Council Road Safety Review of June calming measures-traffic lights etc along the junction 2007 includes an Integrated Safety aforementioned be constructed to avoid road deaths Project in Bridlington, based on identified waiting to happen!! needs such as this. 426 155 No No specific action Noted required. Mrs M. Barker Other (Swanland Parish Council) 1422 215 Public Rights of Way must be protected within the The public rights of way network is No specific action Scheme protected. Support noted. required. Mr Steve Knifton Observations (Leconfield Parish Council) Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 24 1019 228 Possibly Public Rights of Way need some protection, The public rights of way network is No specific action although in some cases these could be diverted protected. Support noted. required. The location where necessary. Roadside commercial development of roadside should not be encouraged but maybe some protection development is not a is needed where it already exists. Transport issue per se but is a matter for the LDF. Miss K. E. Laister Support with conditions (Ferriby Conservation Society) 845 242 Public Rights of way need protecting The public rights of way network is No specific action protected. Support noted. required. Mrs D. E. Franks Observations (Paull Parish Council) 527 256 Yes, Public Rights of Way and relevant roadside The public rights of way network is No specific action commercial development because of access, social protected. Support noted. required. Mrs Sally Howlat Support and economic need (Seaton Ross Parish Council) 350 270 Public Rights of Way are certainly worthy of protection The public rights of way network is No specific action protected. Support noted. required. Mrs K. Soltys Observations (Mappleton Parish Council) 843 285 Rights of way must be protected The public rights of way network is No specific action protected. Support noted. required. Mrs K. Roe Observations (Langtoft Parish Council) 1429 344 Not known No specific action Noted required Mr John Winter Other 1426 346 No specific comments No specific action Noted required George Wimpey Other PLC 1425 Ms Liz Beighton Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 25 (Spawforths) 1431 360 No specific comments No specific action Noted required Miller Strategic Other Land 1425 Ms Liz Beighton (Spawforths) 1430 374 No specific comments No specific action Noted required Mr Cowton Other 1425 Ms Liz Beighton (Spawforths) 1432 402 No, there are no other issues which should be taken Noted No specific action into account. Public Rights of Way are protected required Ms Kathryn Jukes Observations through other legislation and proposals for change of (Carter Jonas LLP) use/redevelopment of commercial development should be considered on their individual merits. A Transport DPD should only be concerned with matters relevant to transport within the context of planning policy and relevant legislation. 1435 432 Villages in general need protecting, giving bus Substantial efforts already go into No specific action services to enable residents to get out to shop, projecting bus services and PROW's. required Mrs H Hook Support doctors, events etc. Yes protect Public Rights of Way 1437 446 No comment No specific action Noted required Unknown Other (Albanwise Ltd) 1436 Mr Michael O'Connell (Entec UK Ltd) 1442 494 Yes we feel that footpaths, bridleways, public rights of The public rights of way network is No specific action way, our green lanes should be protected protected. Support noted. required. W Buckle Support (Wetwang Parish Council) 1443 512 Protected Public Rights of Way The public rights of way network is No specific action protected. Support noted. required.

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 26 Ms Sarah Watson Observations (Sigglesthorne Parish Council) 1452 716 Public rights of way need protecting and where cut by When new highways, or alterations to No specific action major roads foot bridges are needed for cycles, existing highways, are proposed the required. horses and pedestrians. needs of walkers and cyclists are fully considered , for example during the recent construction of the Melton Grade Separated Junction on the A63. Cllr Winifred I Observations Knight Protect commercial developments on the A1079 where it passes through settlements even if this means limited widening of the road in those places. It would make more sense to promote the Support for this scheme noted. Consider protection in reinstatement of the rail route, Beverley to York, with the LDF. parking at all stations, to relieve traffic congestion on the A1079. 1464 818 Public Rights of Way should be protected. The public rights of way network is No specific action protected. Support noted. required. Stephanie Marriott Observations (Hornsea and District Chamber of Trade) 480 865 Public Rights of Way should always be protected - The public rights of way network is No specific action they cannot legally be extinguished protected. Support noted. required. Mrs J. Observations Heathershaw (Hornsea Residents Association) 1474 1204 Public rights of way need protecting. The public rights of way network is No specific action protected. Support noted. required. Sue Atkins Observations (Middleton on the Wolds Parish Council) 1494 1406 We have not had any notification on this subject until On the assumption that this response See recommendation 20/11/06. Being one of the properties involved we refers to the Beverley to York Railway in relation to response should have been notified before now to enable us to Line issue, see comments in relation to number 2061, below study the documents and then pass comments response number 2061, below Mr David Observation Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 27 Stephenson 1499 1447 This question seemed too complex to be capable of Noted No action Mr David Horsley Observations response by a committee. (Beverley Town Council) 1502 1497 It is important that the Planners are aware of planning Noted, but decisions are always made on No specific action pre-1995. I have personally been made aware that up-to-date data and the latest policy required. records are not always up to date. It could be position. Older scenarios are not always decisions are made on incorrect or incomplete data relevant J Burnett Observations (East Cottingwith Parish Council) 1482 1585 Not known Noted No action Mr James Durham Other (Hull City Council) 1450 1674 D/K Noted No action Mrs Val Wood Other (Anlaby with Anlaby Common Parish Council) 1513 1693 Transport strategy should be formulated in It is agreed that all policies should interact Prepare the LDF in conjunction with other policies so as to form a with each other. For this reason, accordance with the comprehensive approach. As such, it is necessary to therefore, the respondent's suggested RSS as required by focus development outside Developments Strategy approach is not agreed as it appears to guidance. Settlements (Policy DS1 - 3 settlements) in and be contrary to the RSS by promoting around Market Villages, particularly those that have substantial development contrary to RSS. been identified as suitable locations for enhanced public transport provision. This approach accords with the Small Settlements DPD, and will sustain local services. Melrose PLC Observations In addition, the Transport strategy should clearly note This approach is at odds with all received Prepare the LDF in that the provision of development outside advice and the RSS. accordance with the Development Strategy Settlements is the most viable RSS as required by method of providing the necessary funding to support guidance. local transport services thereby avoiding the isolation, poor sustainability and greater carbon footprint for local communities. 110 Mr Andy Brown (MCP Planning and Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 28 Development) 1517 1750 The promotion of rail for freight movement is Noted and accepted. Even when using Consider the protection significant, but it is important that the vital role of road rail for the transport of freight, the final of existing and potential freight is not overlooked. Many local businesses are stage of delivery is almost always likely to rail freight and inaccessible by rail and this issue should not be be by road, though road hauliers could waterborne freight sites neglected, particularly where these businesses lie on consider working more with rail if facilities from conflicting major arterial routes or close to motorway junctions. for modal transfer were available locally development in order to and if the rail companies showed more allow for their future interest in local freight services or use or expansion. innovative concepts such as 'Minimodal' containers or Freight Multiple Units, for example (see comment from respondent no. 1907 below). In the meantime, roads can be used openly by freight vehicles, subject only to local restrictions. Mr Joseph Observations Richardson (Jos Richardson & Son Ltd) 554 1769 No specific comment, although in relation to the Noted and agreed. The role of the Give consideration to commercial development the Agency would expect Transport DPD was to concentrate on whether or not roadside the Transport DPD to focus purely on transport issues Transport infrastructure issues. The development needs and transport schemes and that commercial location of other land uses adjacent to protection in the LDF. development of a significant nature would be better roads, railways or waterways (such as placed with in other DPDs houses, shops, employment sites, etc) is a matter being dealt with in the restructured LDF. Mr Graham Observations Titchener (Highways Agency) 1518 Mr Ashley Stratford (Halcrow Group Ltd) 1520 1807 A1033 Hedon By Pass to Saltend Roundabout land The land in this area is already protected No specific further around to be protected from development in a general sense by the 'countryside' action. policies of the JSP and other plans, whether for road widening or other new land uses. Mr John Ledger Observations 1521 1836 Public rights of way must be protected, were this may The public rights of way network is No specific action Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 29 not be possible. Alterative routes to maintain the protected. Support noted. required. intended route must be found. Mr Douglas E Observations Kendall (North Cave Parish Land for cycleways and good well-lit footpaths to allow Noted. The Transport DPD will consider No specific further Council) people to walk or ride to shops and places of work Accessibility issues. Best practice action, as this is being must be incorporated in developments and indicates that an easy walking distance addressed by the LDF. safeguarded. from housing development is between 400metres/5 minutes and 800metres/10 minutes. This best practice is being considered to make housing allocations in the Allocations DPD Preferred Options document. Any new development must have the provision of allowing no more than a 4 minute walk to a bus stop. 1475 1850 Sometimes Noted No specific further action Jean Kitchen Observations 1522 1863 Paragraph 5.7 states that 'large scale Transport Noted Consider the extent of projects are often dependant on a successful bid for protection required for funding from the Government.' The LDF must show such projects in the sufficient commitment to protect these schemes LDF. Mr A. M. Ross Observations otherwise the Government may demote them in their (Hull & East Riding list of regional priorities and be reluctant to fund them. Rail Users Association) 1472 1913 Public Rights of Way should not need extra protection This is noted and we are aware of this No specific action as they are protected in law, as long as they are project. New PROW's would receive the required recorded on the Definitive Map. However, there are an same protection as existing ones. Jennifer Aird Observations unknown number of historical or unrecorded routes (East Riding of which are not on the Definitive Map. There is an Yorkshire & initiative known as the Lost Ways Project, now in the Kingston Upon Hull hands of Natural England, which is attempting to Joint Local Access research and record these routes. Therefore any new Forum) development needs to take account of both recorded Rights of Way, and those which may be reclaimed and recorded in the future. 484 1923 No Noted No specific action required Mrs Jean Mayland Other (Barmston & Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 30 Fraisthorpe Parish Council) 1523 1950 PROW should be protected . Lay bys The public rights of way network is No specific action protected. Support noted. required. Julie Abraham Observations 427 1964 Lay-Byes [sic] & Rights of Way The public rights of way network is No specific action protected. Support noted. required. Mrs M. Barker Observations (North Ferriby Parish Council) 1528 1993 No comment apart from SS1 provision Noted No specific action required Mr Ian Pitcher Other (Melbourne Parish Council) 838 2029 Public rights of way where there is a genuine need for Qualified support for the protection of No specific action Mrs D. Beare Observations and use of these paths/ways PROW's noted required (Hook Parish Council)

Question T2 266 17 We totally support and indeed strongly advocate the Strong support noted. The extent of protection re-opening of the York to Hull railway line and stations is being carefully and the protection of the route identified for the considered as part of Council by Carl Bro Group through the Local the Allocations DPD. Mr Philip Taylor Support Development Framework. We are unclear what is (Minsters Rail meant by but not the stretches in the 'countryside'. Campaign) Sections of the route are clearly rural. However whether sections nearer the towns are in the 'countryside' is a question of opinion and degree. Its precisely these sections that are under greatest threat and critical to get the rail link past the towns. The protected corridors must be clearly identified on a plan so there is no ambiguity. 1022 96 Yes - The A1079 improvement and the Hull / Beverley This approach and support for the Hull- No specific action /York railway proposal are conflicting - only one York rail scheme are noted. required. Mr Graham Lenton Observations should be progressed. Suggest leave the A1079 'congested' and make the railway 'attractive to commuters' 1413 122 Can understand why these places are protected, but It is not agreed that rural roads are Refer this comment to

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 31 what about rural areas, who need to access larger 'disgraceful' though, of course, they would relevant council officers towns for everyday reasons. Public transport in some always be better in an ideal world. The for their information. places is very limited, and the state of the roads in Council has over 2000 kilometres (1350 rural areas is disgraceful, this does not encourage miles) of rural roads to look after and cycling or walking as many of these roads have pot every effort is made to keep them to a holes to the edge and grass growing in the middle reasonable standard, with limited resources. However, with regard to the classified 'A' and 'B' roads - on both the urban and rural networks - their condition compares well with national standards. The Council aims to keep them in good condition because they provide essential local distribution and longer distance through-routes across the East Riding. Ms Nicola Salvidge Observations (Seaton PC) 1409 135 In terms of transport schemes in and around Beverley As part of the Beverley Integrated It is unlikely that land it seems that the previously proposed Figham Link Transport Package, both the Grovehill beyond the Highway has now been replaced with the Southern Relief Road and Hull Road (A1035) roundabouts Boundary will be Road. These two schemes are likely to have a similar will be remodelled to provide extra required at this stage, effect on the southern area of the town although it is capacity to ease congestion. Once thus there is no need to noted that the junction of the scheme with the A164 is carried out, the traffic situation will be safeguard land in this located around a kilometre further south than the monitored and, if necessary, land beyond Transport DPD. Should Figham Link which allows a fair section of south the highway boundary may be future monitoring western Beverley to be 'relieved' by the scheme safeguarded to allow for further work to indicate a need for compared to the Figham Link. Swinemoor Lane itself. additional work to Swinemoor Lane, then land should be safeguarded in the future. Jon Suckley Observation However, there are still no proposals in the Transport (HOW Planning) DPD to upgrade or improve the eastern link in the Beverley 'ring' route. All the traffic proposed to be diverted from the Town Centre from the south which is proposed to travel along the new Southern Relief Road (SRR) will travel along the A1174 Hull Road from the junction with the SRR northbound to the junction with the A1035 all on two lane single carriageway. The route is already busy and it is forecast, according to East Riding of Yorkshire Council, to generate

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 32 several hundred additional trips during the peak hour periods, This additional traffic is clearly not proposed to be mitigated in the current version of the draft Transport DPD. This situation must be remedied for the town and in particular the eastern side of Beverley to operate efficiently and safely. 426 156 No Noted No specific action required Mrs M. Barker Other (Swanland Parish Council) 482 207 Proposed Car Park at Brough Station Jill Stephenson Support (NB This scheme at King Edward Terrace to the south of the station opened in December 2007) (Network Rail) We are aware of this proposal and Trans Pennine Support noted. Car park opened in Express (Franchise Operators) are in agreement to it December 2007. No specific further action required 397 212 We have looked at the several schemes in the Noted, but no specific action is required at No specific action proposed list in the light of any possible effects on our the moment as, depending on scheme required listed sites. As far as we can see none are likely to selection/progress, the exposure of rock impinge directly on geological sites. However the by- strata would be a design detail, to be pass for Middleton on the Wolds following the old dealt with at the design stage. railway track is of possible interest. A quarry site just north of Middleton has significance, and is under threat of infilling / recreational use. Were the by-pass to go ahead as scheme it would cut through much the same strata and over a longer length than is exposed in the quarry. Elsewhere in the country cuttings have been engineered to leave strata visible and available for examination, or even used as an educational visitor attraction. We would be interested in such a site as a relatively cheap and simple addition to our catalogue of sites. H B Heaton Observations (East Yorkshire A similar situation might be duplicated if dualing over RIGS Group) Arras Hill on A1079 were undertaken. We have a site there but landscaping has covered it except for small areas, so access is limited. 1422 216 I feel that the re-opening of the York to Hull Railway These "feelings" are noted. However, a Protect a rail route line should not go ahead. I don't feel that it would be detailed study carried out by consultants based on that Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 33 used by enough people and would affect both Public for the local authorities has shown that recommended in the Rights of Way and the life of people living along what such a route is economically feasible and consultancy study, would be the new line. I am not convinced that the line that, with future world energy scenarios, is pending further long could be used to take any significant freight off the certainly worthy of further consideration. term decisions, to roads. If it will just be for passengers then the Bus Rail freight companies have accepted that protect it from adverse Services could be improved and money would be it would be a useful alternative approach development in the better spent on improving the safety of the A1079 to Hull Docks in the event of interruption meantime and thus to to services on the existing approach from ensure its feasibility for the west, or if that line was to reach the future. capacity (which could be the case in the relatively near future due to planned increases in traffic through the Port of Hull). The Council is continuing to raise awareness of its longer term aspirations for this scheme, including with the Department for Transport Mr Steve Knifton Object In terms of buses, the A1079, is already Protect land identified a 'Quality Bus Corridor' and upgrades in any A1079 Corridor such as 'real time information' are Study. planned for the main settlements along it. Furthermore, a study of the A1079 Corridor is also proposed and this will once again examine these issues. In the meantime a rail route based on that recommended in the earlier study should be protected pending further long term decisions in order to protect it from adverse development and thus ensure its feasibility. (Leconfield Parish Council) 1019 229 No Comments Noted No action Miss K. E. Laister Other (Ferriby Conservation Society) 845 243 Should like to see Park & Ride facility for Holderness Consider protecting a and Bus Priority on Hedon Road It is understood that this is one of the Park and Ride site if approaches being considered by Hull City requested to do so by Council. Hull CC. Mrs D. E. Franks Observations Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 34 (Paull Parish Council) 527 257 No. All in favour of improvements to A1079 - to make Safety improvement schemes for the Give consideration to it safer A1079 are included in the existing LTP. the need for protection in the A1079 road corridor. Mrs Sally Howlat Support (Seaton Ross Parish Council) 350 271 Hull to Hornsea Railtrail? should this be protected just The Rail Trail is a Definitive Footpath No specific action in case, who knows what may be needed in next through almost all of the East Riding, so is required at the present decade protected by legislation already. It is also time. a designated national cycle route (the Trans Pennine Trail) that runs almost entirley through Open Countryside. It is not considered that additional protection at this stage, either for its current use or for future transport projects, is needed Mrs K. Soltys Observations (Mappleton Parish Council) 843 286 No comment No specific action Noted required. Mrs K. Roe Other (Langtoft Parish Council) 1429 345 The road widening proposal on the A1079 around Support for the Hull -Beverley-York rail Bear in mind the Pocklington needs to take into consideration the link as a more sustainable alternative to alternative approaches amount of traffic that already bottle necks at Barmby major work on the A1079, such as of either, major Moor between 7.30 and 9.30am. Simply widening the dualing, is noted. Nevertheless, it is upgrading of the road to this point will not alleviate the problem but intended to carry out a feasibility study on A1079, or the compound it. Traffic will, potentially be approach [sic] the A1079 corridor to assess road safety reintroduction of a rail this at higher speed and need to slow down rapidly, and accessibility issues. These views in alternative. this will have a knock on effect. In addition the A1079 support of the rail option and the need to will be affected. Already at Barmby Moor (even the improve the Barmby Moor/A1079 junction 50mph limit), traffic trying to join the A1079 to York is (by realigning the main road further to the risking accident where there is no courtesy shown to south west)should be fed in to the road crossing the carriageway. Whilst it may affect my feasibility study process at the appropriate property directly, I would be in favour of a revision of time, along with other similar comments the A1079 route further to the South West and an made as a result of the Transport DPD upgrade to dual carriageway. My real preference consultation. Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 35 Mr John Winter Observations would be to the proposal for a Hull - York Rail link which should reduce the amount of cars using the road (which is the majority of the road users at peak times). 1426 347 No specific comments No specific action Noted required. George Wimpey Other PLC 1425 Ms Liz Beighton (Spawforths) 1431 361 No specific comments No specific action Noted required. Miller Strategic Other Land 1425 Ms Liz Beighton (Spawforths) 1430 375 No specific comments No specific action Noted required. Mr Cowton Other 1425 Ms Liz Beighton (Spawforths) 1432 403 Transport Schemes should be listed where they are Carry the general contained within the Council’s LTP in order to reflect Noted and agreed - but only in part. The approach of the Issues the relationship between the documents. It is not the LDF may need to include some desirable and Options document purpose of a DPD to amend or alter the LTP list. long-term schemes that are not included into further in LTP2 due to the time frame of that development of the document. LDF. Ms Kathryn Jukes Observations (Carter Jonas LLP) 1433 410 Yorkshire Forward welcomes the documents Support for the Goole Multi Modal Bear in mind for the commitment to protecting land within the region for Terminal is noted and welcomed. LDF. Mr John Pilgrim Support new transport schemes not covered by existing local (Yorkshire Forward) plans. We welcome the concept of the Goole Multi- Modal terminal which will provide improved public transport infrastructure within the region; this policy would compliment the objectives of both the Regional Economic Strategy and Draft Regional Spatial Strategy. Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 36 1434 431 T2 The Issues and Options Transport DPD (page 7) Consider protecting a identifies land that is intended to be protected for new This is noted, but any site for a Park and Park and Ride site if Transport schemes. We consider that a further site at Ride facility would be considered with Hull requested to do so by Bilton (see land for identification only cross-hatched City Council. Hull CC. Ms Kirsty Morris Observations on the attached plan) should also be protected. This is (Walton & co) a potential site for a future Park & Ride and should be protected in the Transport DPD. 1435 433 No comment No specific action Noted required. Mrs H Hook Other 1437 447 In principle Albanwise supports the Beverley Support for the principle of Park and Ride Safeguard land Integrated Transport Plan proposals, and believes that is noted, as is the objection to the site required for the the provision of a southern relief road will not only be suggested for it to the east of the railway Beverley Integrated beneficial to the town and its inhabitants but will bring line and north of the proposed bypass. Transport Scheme a range of benefits to the wider sub-region. Whilst the including the proposed proposed Park and Ride is missing from the proposals Park and Ride site to map included in the consultation document, we the east of the railway understand from conversations with officers at the line and south of Council that this facility is to be located between the Beverley Leisure proposed relief road and the start of the proposed bus Centre. priority greenway. Whilst the principle of a planned Park and Ride facility is also supported, the suggested location is not. Unknown Observations (Albanwise Ltd) If a Park and Ride facility is to be viable, for Location of the P+R facility between the Safeguard land operational reasons we believe that it needs to be two approaches to the town would pick up required for the located adjacent to one of the existing arterial roads traffic along both routes - rather than just Beverley Integrated into Beverley so that it can achieve optimal patronage the A164 as suggested by the Transport Scheme by capturing commuters and visitors travelling from respondent. It would also make use of an including the proposed the south. We also believe that the facility should be almost unique ( for an existing urban area Park and Ride site to located sufficiently far enough out of the town so that ) proposed 'busway' link that would give the east of the railway potential ‘users’ can be attracted to the facility before access to the town centre directly. Its line and south of being caught in any congestion closer into the town. close-in location would also assist Beverley Leisure The currently proposed Park and Ride location is also operational costs and reliability as the Centre. likely to compromise long term land-use aspirations route would be shorter and avoid existing for the town. For these reasons we suggest that a junctions and traffic along a high more suitable location for the proposed Park and Ride percentage of its route into the town would be in the vicinity of the Jocks Lodge junction centre. It is also adjacent to an (A164 & A1079). Locating the facility at this location operational passenger railway which could also complement the proposed traffic signal could accomodate a station stop if ever improvements which are specified at this junction in the need arose at a future date.

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 37 the consultation document and thereby assist in Preliminary design work is already in making the proposed relief road a more complete hand on the Beverley Package, with the solution to traffic issues in the locality. preferred Park & Ride site, as referred to here ie east of the railway line and south of the Leisure Centre.

1436 Finally we believe that, within an area of search, alternative options for the location of the Park and Ride facility need to be consulted upon. Whilst the Council has presented its “preferred” option (para 5.6) we do not know what alternatives have been considered to date and on what grounds this option performs better than alternatives. We acknowledge that bids for Government funding of transport schemes require a validated business case, which includes an option appraisal and that, according to the Council, a thorough business case appears to have already been prepared. However, we are keen to see alternative options consulted upon under the ‘Preferred Options’ stage and believe the Council should clearly set out (in the same document) its reasoning for choosing the current location. Mr Michael O'Connell (Entec UK Ltd) 1441 475 ABP note that an area of land to the south of the port There would be no objection to wider use The landowner has of Goole has been protected as a future transport of the Intermodal Terminal by the Port of recently indicated the scheme. Whilst ABP support the protection of land in Goole in planning terms and the port scheme may not be this location for a multi-modal terminal, ABP are should liaise directly with the other parties deliverable. They are concerned that the land may only be served by water concerned to effect this. Indeed one of also considering borne freight from the canal and may not be the aspirations for making this allocation alternative non- sufficiently linked to the rest of the port. It is unclear was to encourage use of the Knottingley transport uses for the from the document, what the proposals include and to Goole railway for freight use, which site. how the terminal will make the most efficient use of would allow trains to run directly into the rail freight potential from the wider port. As such, ABP ABP docks estate, getting rid of the request that full consideration is given to the strategic extremely awkward shunting manoeuvre significance of any proposed multi-modal terminal to (from the Hull to Doncaster main line west ensure that it will maximise the use of freight from the of the station), that is necessary at the wider port estate and will not be strictly limited to a moment. This would permit the running of smaller and more restricted canal berth. This will longer trains if required, as well as making ensure that the potential for the terminal to possible a direct rail connection into the

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 38 accommodate as much freight as possible is fully docks estate in the Albert Street area, utilised. most notably to South Dock. The allocation would, in effect, reinstate the original, direct rail route into the docks, together with new freight facilities on the site of the original marshalling yard. The DPD should protect the site right up to the junction on the Knottingley to Goole railway line (Engine Shed Junction). Associated British Observations Ports 1440 ABP currently provide a dedicated inter-modal rail This grant was provided with the support The landowner has freight facility within the port estate and this does have of ERYC and the improved rail terminal recently indicated the further capacity to increase freight movement. ABP facilities that were created is welcomed by scheme may not be have received a rail freight facility grant used to the Council. This new and larger loading deliverable. They are improve rail freight facilities to the port and this needs facility already has (and could make also considering to be fully considered as part of a wider strategic greater use of) its direct connection to the alternative non- approach to freight facilities at the port. Goole-Knottingley railway line through the transport uses for the proposed Intermodal Terminal, thus site. avoiding the complicated current access arrangements and taking more heavy goods off the region's roads. Mr Duncan In addition to the above, ABP have future aspirations This aspiration is noted. The site is within The site at old Goole is Armstrong-Payne for a new river berth on the River Ouse. We have the Docks Estate in Old Goole and, as being proposed to be (NAI Fuller Peiser) attached a site plan indicating the location of the such, does not require protection from safeguarded through proposed scheme that will accommodate a new berth conflicting development. One potential the LDF. to provide access for one vessel, covered concern with this site is its complete warehousing and open storage further increasing the reliance on road transport for the onward operational capacity of the port. The recent removal movement of goods, since it could not be of the Dutch River bridge has opened up access to reached by rail. The intensification of the proposed development area which will help enable HGV traffic into this area of Old Goole, the scheme to progress. Pursuant to this, ABP having just improved the situation through therefore request that this site is also identified as a the opening of the new Dutch River protected transport scheme within the LDF and Bridge, should be given careful Transport DPD. consideration by the Port Authority. 1153 478 Totally agree with the protection of the proposed Support noted. Consider areas of Beverley - York railway line protection in the LDF. Mr Richard Bryan Support 1442 496 None of the proposals affect us so we do not feel we Noted. No specific action should comment about other areas where the local required. W Buckle Other feeling may differ from our's Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 39 (Wetwang Parish Council) 1443 514 No comments Noted. No specific action required. Ms Sarah Watson Other (Sigglesthorne Parish Council) 465 575 No Comments Noted. No specific action required. Mrs K. Richmond Other (South Cave Parish Council) 248 578 No comment Noted. No specific action required. Mrs C. Hird Other (Snaith and Cowick Parish Council) 833 702 The proposed bypass for Keyingham is a little The route of the bypass is shown on the Discontinue route confusing and bypass would simply reroute traffic to current local plan, along the southern- protection for the the borders of the village where the majority of most edge of the village as proposed. Keyingham Bypass. residential housing is situated. A map of the proposed The amenities of existing and any bypass would be useful. proposed housing would be safeguarded by means of appropriate design features at the design/planning application stage. However, the amount of future development proposed for the village is now unlikely to be sufficient to require (or pay for) the provision of a bypass, the principle of which is generally contrary to various policies. Ms H. Harvatt Observations (Hollym Parish Council) 1452 718 Reopen the Beverley to York rail link as soon as Support for the Hull-Beverley-York rail link Bear these comments possible. Reduce reliance on cars and pollution. is noted, as is antipathy towards A1079 in mind at the next Enhance life for villages marooned by Beeching and road schemes. The route of the Beverley stage, together with make a tourist attraction. Partial dualing of the A1079 Southern Relief Road was selected on route protection for the will produce a frustrating stop, go, situation at largely highways grounds and land uses Beverley Southern settlements and the frustration during extensive road within it will be determined by other Relief Road. works will create dangerous situations. The Beverley DPD's. Cllr Winifred I Observations south relief road should take in as little land as Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 40 Knight possible because we know that developers will inevitably build on it eg. Market Weighton and N W Beverley 1464 820 No Noted. No specific action required. Stephanie Marriott Other (Hornsea and District Chamber of Trade) 480 883 No Noted. No specific action required. Mrs J. Other Heathershaw (Hornsea Residents Association) 1474 1210 Page 23 highlights that Middleton on the Wolds Page 23 of the Issues and Options Do not protect a route disused railway is protected, the Parish Council is booklet is misleading. Although shown on for a Middleton on the concerned that this conflicts with previous notification the East Yorkshire Local Plan as a Wolds Bypass, but re- from East Riding of Yorkshire Council. The Parish bypass route, the former railway line is examine the issue, Council has been advised that the old railway line has not now protected as this protection was along with other been deselected as a potential by pass route. withdrawn some years ago. A bypass suggested village route consultation exercise was bypasses should higher undertaken at about the same time it was level policy relating to withdrawn and various options bypasses ever change considered. Although a bypass for in the future and, at that Middleton is not now proposed in LTP2 time, protect any and could simply add to interurban road preferred route in the traffic on the A614 rather than reduce it LDF. (which would be contrary to higher level advice) a swathe of land between North Dalton and Middleton is declared on legal searches to indicate properties that could be affected by the various options were a bypass to go ahead.To take forward any bypass proposal would, however, need a completely new consultation programme and justification. Sue Atkins Observations (Middleton on the Wolds Parish Council) Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 41 1478 1242 Re proposal Railway Line Hull to York. Kevin Parsons Observations Looking at the plans it seems to pass through my There would never be an ideal time to It is agreed that the garden or adjacent to my house, making my house inform those potentially affected by extent of protection virtually unsaleable. It would have been courteous of transport proposals. Officers have had needs careful you to inform us of this matter. discussions with local residents and consideration in the representations have been made by them Market Weighton area during this current consultation exercise especially and a (see below nos. 2061-2069) revised route may be possible. Reconsider the line of the route in the north Market Weighton - Shiptonthorpe area.

1481 1248 Re proposed railway line through Market Weighton - it There would never be an ideal time to It is agreed that the would appear that the line will pass through my house! inform those potentially affected by extent of protection - making it virtually unsaleable. I feel very upset and transport proposals. Officers have had needs careful think it would have been courteous of you to have discussions with local residents and consideration in the informed us. representations have been made by them Market Weighton area during this current consultation exercise especially and a (see below nos. 2061-2069) revised route may be possible. Reconsider the line of the route in the north Market Weighton - Shiptonthorpe area. Susan Sissons Observations I became aware of the document yesterday by reading the Pocklington Post. Within the article was a map showing the proposed route of the rail track option. I was very surprised and distressed to find that it passed across my property. The lack of consultation with myself was discussed with [relevant officer] today. The explanation that she offered was that I wasn't on the electoral role. This is not the case. Due to the blight that has been put on my property by the publication of such documentation, be it a development plan that comes to fruition or a protected transport route for the future or just a point for discussion, I am contacting my solicitor with a view to advice on how to proceed.

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 42 1493 1403 Re Proposed Railway Line between Beverley and York. Mr William Harry Observations Our house is close to where the line crosses If the scheme were ever to proceed, the It is agreed that the Ray Londesborough Road in Market Weighton and I feel means of crossing Londesborough Road extent of protection that this would affect the sale value of our house, would require an engineering study due to needs careful even if the proposed line is not built the local geography of the north Market consideration in the Weighton area. Market Weighton area especially and a revised route may be possible. Reconsider the line of the route in the north Market Weighton - Shiptonthorpe area. 994 1430 A southern relief road for Cottingham has appeared Comparisons with other bypass schemes Reassess the question on various plans going back over the last 30 years. in North Yorkshire and elswewhere in the of traffic in Cottingham Village representatives have all commented on the East Riding are noted, however the after work on the A164 congestion in the village being an urgent issue. Most Cottingham southern bypass proposal has been completed. have actually promoted this relief road with plans and was dropped some years ago. It is positive resident surveys. acknowledged that the A164 traffic issues must be addressed and it is possible that work in connection with the A164 will make travel through Cottingham less attractive, thus helping to reduce through- traffic. Peter Robinson Observations The £150 million plus developments at Castle Hill Hospital will benefit the whole population of the East Riding and North Lincolnshire but for the Cottingham residents it will inevitable increase traffic through South Street and Thwaite Street. With the largest hospitals in Yorkshire at one side and a forever expanding, in Housing and industry, City of Hull at the other side the situation can only deteriorate.

The last traffic survey five years ago was severely flawed in that it over stated the local traffic and therefore understated the through traffic by including the hospital traffic as local nevertheless the Thwaite Street traffic was at that time quoted as 16,000 vehicles in only 12 hours.

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 43

By contrast the tiny village of Reighton near Filey today has only 9,000 vehicles in double the number of hours and yet their By-Pass is being government funded by a sum of £6.5 million.

The main east to west route through Cottingham is almost 3 miles of mainly narrow roads and a busy railway crossing with hundreds of properties adjoining compared to Middleton which is only 0.5 miles with only a couple of handfuls of properties alongside and yet Middleton is listed on appendix 1.

The traffic in Beverley is more multi-directional and therefore less concentrated than that of Cottingham. It is also a shorter distance east to west or north to south than the 3 miles mentioned above.

More residents are affected by more traffic on this route in Cottingham than anywhere else in the East Riding and yet strangely there is no mention of it in appendix 1.

A southern link from Priory Road to The Parkway would be 0.5 miles and cost very little but could remove all the through traffic from South Street. This would of course put the traffic onto The Parkway but this road was built for this purpose being very wide with only a few properties fronting onto it. In future when money became available this 0.5 mile could be linked at each end to Castle Hill and Bricknell Avenue.

This is the only possible position for a relief road for Cottingham as anywhere else will not take traffic from central and west Hull out of the village centre.

It is for these reasons that I feel some provisions should be made within this plan. 1499 1449 Mr David Horsley Observations Beverley North West bypass : realign to join Dog- kennel lane roundabout to North- East bypass

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 44 (Beverley Town We support this proposal. In order to protect Molescroft village and Consider implementing Council) to enable long vehicles to negotiate the the route of a new link Church Lane roundabout (which some road between the cannot do at present) the route of a new Beverley North West road, forming a short extension to the Bypass and the B1248 Beverley North West Bypass as far as the Malton Road as shown B1248 Malton Road and shown on the on the existing Beverley existing Local Plan, may come forward Borough Local Plan with future housing development. should enough housing come forward to fund the proposal.

Victoria Road widening abandoned due to new Now that the scheme has been Do not protect land southern relief road – we reject this proposal – while superseded by the Beverley Integrated beyond the highway this widening seems less likely we feel it is premature Transport Plan, there would appear to be boundary for any to abandon it completely. little point in protecting it, as it would be widening of Victoria damaging to a sensitive approach to the Road, Beverley. town. Land would, in any case, be within the highway boundary.

New – Beverley Integrated Transport Plan Support for this scheme is noted. Safeguard land required for the Beverley Integrated Transport Plan including the Park and Ride Site A164 borders – Humber Bridge to A1079 Support for this scheme is noted. The small amount of land beyond the Highway Boundary required for the preferred scheme is proposed to be safeguarded through the Allocations DPD. No further specific action required.

A1079 dualing, Dunswell to Killingwoldgraves and Support for this scheme is noted. Bear these comments Shiptonthorpe to Pocklington in mind at the next stages of the LDF.

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 45 We support these three new proposals

We believe that it is necessary to protect Swinemoor As part of the Beverley Integrated It is unlikely that land Lane. Plans to extend relief roads to the north and Transport Package, both the Grovehill beyond the Highway south and any conceivable developments at the Road and Hull Road (A1035) roundabouts Boundary will be Grovehill junction will place still more pressure on this will be remodelled to provide extra required at this stage, road, which is already close to capacity. capacity to ease congestion. Once thus there is no need to carried out, the traffic situation will be safeguard land in this monitored and, if necessary, land beyond Transport DPD. Should the highway boundary may be future monitoring safeguarded to allow for further work to indicate a need for Swinemoor Lane itself. additional work to Swinemoor Lane, then land should be safeguarded in a future revision of the LDF. No further specific action required at the Preferred Options stage. 1502 1498 They seem reasonable Noted. No specific further action. J Burnett Support (East Cottingwith Parish Council) 515 1549 At this stage, the only aspect about which we wish to Support for the scheme is noted. The Work together with make any comment is in relation to the proposed re- recommended route of the possible English Heritage to take opening of the York to Hull railway line. Whilst we railway line affects only a narrow section account of their support the principle of the re-opening of this route, of the battlefield, towards its northern concerns at the we have significant concerns about its proposed fringe. Due to other nearby land uses and appropriate time so that alignment to the east of Stamford Bridge which is critical route alignments both to the south knowledge of the area shown on the Map in Appendix 2 as bisecting the west and to the north east, it would be is preserved by Registered Battlefield. extremely difficult to realign the railway to appropriate means. In avoid the battlefield site (as far as it can the meantime continue be defined) altogether. This should be to protect the proposed borne in mind at later stages if the route is route. to be developed, when a detailed excavation may be required in order to preserve the site 'by record' and measures taken to preserve, as far as possible, the landscape setting of the

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 46 wider battlefield to the south. Ian Smith (English Observations The Battle of Stamford Bridge is one of the most Heritage Yorkshire significant battles in English history and is one of only Region) seven Battlefields on the Register in this Region. National policy guidance makes it clear that the protection of a Registered Battlefield is a material consideration in determining development proposals and the Battlefield is protected under the provisions of Policy ENV6 of the Joint Structure Plan. English Heritage would be strongly opposed to any scheme which would be likely to damage the authenticity, integrity, visual amenity, or accessibility of the Battlefield. 1482 1586 No comment Noted. No specific further action required. Mr James Durham Other (Hull City Council) 1483 1628 I became aware of the above document yesterday by There would never be an ideal time to It is agreed that the reading the Pocklington Post. Within the article was a inform those potentially affected by extent of protection map showing the proposed route of the Market transport proposals. Officers have had needs careful Weighton section of the rail track option. I was very discussions with local residents and consideration in the surprised and distressed to find that it passed across representations have been made by them Market Weighton area my property. The lack of consultation with myself was during this current consultation exercise especially and a discussed with [the relevant Officer] today. The (see below nos. 2061-2069) revised route may be explanation that [the relevant officer] offered was that I possible. Reconsider wasn't on the electoral role. This is not the case. Due the line of the route in to blight that has been put on my property by the the north Market publication of such documentation, be it a Weighton - developments plan that comes to fruition or a Shiptonthorpe area. Mrs Katharine Observations protracted transport route for the future, or just a point Holmes for discussion, I am contacting my solicitor with a view to advice on how to proceed 1511 1651 No Noted. No specific further action required. Mr Peter Lacy Other 1450 1675 No Noted. No specific further action required. Mrs Val Wood Other (Anlaby with Anlaby Common Parish Council) Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 47 1513 1694 The reopening of the York - Hull railway line should be Support for the scheme is noted, as is the If the rail scheme is to progressed as a priority. This project is key to support for more stations than actually be protected as a economic prosperity and will create more efficient proposed by the consultants in the Re- Preferred Option, it is transport links between two major regional cities. The Opening Study. agreed that the extent project should also include the opening of railway of protection and the stations/stops at the various settlements along the number of stations to route, including Market Villages so as to provide be provided needs accessible transport links to the wider community. careful consideration. Melrose PLC Support with If the scheme is developed further, give conditions more consideration to the number of stations along the route (together with parking facilities) as further development studies are undertaken. It should be noted , however, that the number of stations inevitably affects journey-times and, therefore, patronage/profitability. This aspect was considered in the original consultancy Re-Opening Study and recommendationd were made bearing those factors in mind viz. a limited number of station stops.

110 Mr Andy Brown (MCP Planning and Development) 1516 1708 We are particularly concerned regarding the preferred There would never be an ideal time to It is agreed that the alignment of the possible (or otherwise) rail link inform those potentially affected by extent of protection between Hull and York at Market Weighton. We feel transport proposals. Officers have had needs careful very strongly that the people whose properties are discussions with local residents and consideration in the shown on the diagram have had no direct contact or representations have been made by them Market Weighton area been involved in any form of consultation - despite the during this current consultation exercise especially and a fact that [the officer concerned] was happy to have his (see below nos. 2061-2069) revised route may be quote put in the Pocklington Post. (I may add that we possible. Reconsider are not directly affected by this proposal) the line of the route in the north Market Weighton - Shiptonthorpe area. Mr & Mrs S Fletcher Observations 1517 1751 No comment No specific further Noted. action required.

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 48 Mr Joseph Other Richardson (Jos Richardson & Son Ltd) 554 1771 The Agency is supportive of any scheme which would The Highways Agency's support is noted. Consult the Highways promote sustainable travel, particularly public Any planning application for a Car Park at Agency as the Brough transport schemes. The Agency is not specifically Brough station would be worked up with Station Car Park aware of any particular issues associated with any of the Agency's assistance. proposal develops.* Mr Graham Support with the 'new' transport schemes, although should there be * NB the car park Titchener conditions any impact upon travel patterns on the Strategic opened in December Highway Network (eg any potential local impacts on 2007 (Highways Agency) the A63 as a result of the proposed car park at Brough Railway Station) the Agency would wish to be 1518 consulted Mr Ashley Stratford (Halcrow Group Ltd) 498 1788 Natural England notices that land will be protected for The support of English Nature is noted. If the rail scheme is to the re-opening of the York to Hull railway line and These aspects were fully considered by be protected as a stations. Whilst we support the re-opening of the the Consultants in their Re-Opening Preferred Option, it is railway line as a way of reducing private car use within Study. Mitigation measures and routeing agreed that the extent the area there should be careful consideration of the issues would take them into account. of protection needs route. The original route has developed considerable careful consideration. Susan Wilson Support with nature conservation interest and a few sections have conditions been designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (English Nature - (SSSIs adjacent to the original railway line) or Sites of North & East Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs). The Yorkshire Team) section of the old route through the Yorkshire Wolds between Market Weighton and Beverley is particularly important and is a Public Right of Way (Hudson Way). 1489 1803 Section 5 - land for a road alignment New Inn to There are currently no proposals for such Neither a new road link Hilltop Garage or preferably a by-pass should be a scheme, nor any preliminary studies in between the New Inn protected hand (or proposed) that might look into and Hilltop Grange nor one. Road Safety and Highway a new bypass for the Maintenance improvements have village should be removed any need for a new road link protected in the LDF. between the New Inn and Hilltop Grange. Should such a scheme Nor is a new bypass for the village likely be required in the future due to prevailing policies. it could be considered in later updates of the LDF. No specific action Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 49 required. NC Evans Support with conditions (Holme on Spalding Moor Parish Plan Advisory Committee) 1521 1837 A1079 should have priority along with the Hull to York Support for these two schemes is noted. The rail route should be railway. A study has already taken place into the protected. feasibility of a rail link. The parking at Brough station should be brought Planning Permission was granted for Continue to safeguard forward to make it easier for people living in rural additional station parking at King Edward land for the Brough areas around Brough to park to use the train. Terrace to the south of the Up platform in Station car park south late March 2007 of the railway until the scheme is constructed. NB the car park opened in December 2007. Mr Douglas E Support with The link road from Beverley to the A63 and the The A164 is the road being referred to Land beyond the Kendall (North conditions Humber Bridge should be dual carriageway. here and a major transport bid for route Highway Boundary Cave Parish improvement of the Beverley required for the Council) Bypass/Humber Bridge section has been preferred A164 scheme endorsed by the Regional Transport is being considered for Board. protection in the Allocations DPD. 1475 1851 I agree with Goole Multi - Modal Terminal. Support noted. The landowner has recently indicated the scheme may not be deliverable. They are also considering alternative non- transport uses for the site. Jean Kitchen Support 252 1899 1. We strongly support the re-opening of the York to Strong support noted. It is agreed that Protect the route of the Hull railway line and stations and the protection of the the route should be protected and that the suggested Hull - route identified for the Council by Carl Bro Group extent of protection for the suggested Hull Beverley - York railway through the Local Development Framework, whilst - Beverley - York railway route needs line. recognising that the project is long term. We are careful consideration. unclear what is meant by ''but not the stretches in the 'countryside'''. Sections of the route are clearly rural. However whether sections nearer the towns are ''in Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 50 the 'countryside''' is a question of opinion and degree. It's precisely these sections that are under greatest threat and critical to get the railway line past the towns. The protected corridors must be clearly identified on a plan so there is no ambiguity. Mr T Ross (Hull Support with 2. We support the proposals for a multi-modal terminal Support noted. Extend the area of and East Riding conditions at Goole. protection for this Rail Users proposal at the Association) Preferred Options stage to include land up to the Engine Shed Junction on the Goole to Knottingley railway line. 3. We support the proposals for a new station car park Support for the new car park is noted, but The Council will at Brough to the south of the railway. However, the suggested removal of the bay continue discussions access to it will be over a narrow bridge. There are platforms is not supported at the present with Network Rail and disused two east-facing bay platforms at Brough time. This is because existing rail the Train Operating station. If these bay platform lines were removed and infrastructure (particuarly the southern Company, but is likely possibly the bay sides of the platforms adjusted, it bay) should be retained due to the to concentrate on using might be possible to provide access roads to the expense of its later replacement if it were the Brough Relief Road existing and the proposed car park from Skillings ever to be needed again in the future. If and existing access Lane, and ultimately, via the proposed Brough relief further parking were to be required at along King Edward road. The feasibility of providing access from Skillings Brough in the longer term and if it is Terrace to reach the Lane should be considered with Network Rail and the evident at that time that the bay platforms land south of the train operating companies and land protected where were unlikely to ever be needed, then the station, where the new necessary. matter of removing the bay platforms car park is to be could be reconsidered at that future date. located. In the much This should first apply to the northern bay, longer term, future due to the local track layout in the station parking requirements area, which makes use of the southern should concentrate on bay more flexible for rail traffic going to land currently occupied and from Hull - which is where the need by the northern bay could arise at some one day. platform. The southern bay platform should be retained for potential reuse by local trains between Brough and Hull should that ever become desirable at some future date. The southern bay should be

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 51 retained intact and consideration given to highlighting sites such as this where, in the Council's view, important rail infrastructure should be retained intact and not removed for the sake of temporary expediency. NB The track in the bay platforms at Brough was lifted in December 2007 4. Another East Riding railway station that is short of Car park improvements have been made Investigate additional car parking space is Howden. Options should be at the station and further extensions could station car parking with considered with the train operating companies and be considered on land already in Network rail agencies. Network Rail and land protected where necessary. Rail's ownership along the northern side of the line, immediately west of the existing car park. The installation of a footbridge between the car park and the southern 'up' platform would also be most useful, as passengers can be cut off from the platform by the level crossing barrier and road safety would be improved. 312 1912 On behalf of the Wilberfoss Parish Council, I would Noted. The improvement of A1079 in Band of interest like to raise concerns that there appears to be no terms of safety and access is under allocation requiring protection planned to the environs of the A1079 investigation. A ‘band of interest’ consideration of a between Barmby Moor and Kexby, and in particular allocation is being considered through the development’s impact where the road passes through the parish of Allocations DPD. This would allow future on potential road Wilberfoss. If this is indeed the case, the lack of developments along the route to be improvement schemes protection could lead to developments which would considered against potential impact on along the A1079 to be preclude the future dualing of the road in this area or any future road improvements. considered in the the future construction of safety features at the two Allocations DPD. village exits. Mrs S. Wills Observations (Wilberfoss Parish Council) 1472 1914 The LAF feels they could by made more widely Noted. No specific further available. For example there is a list of PRoWs and action required. Jennifer Aird Observations public transport proposals in the LTP2 Accessibility

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 52 (East Riding of Strategy. If these were pulled out and publicised then Yorkshire & those who will be affected could comment more Kingston Upon Hull easily. Joint Local Access Forum) 484 1924 Ruston Parva Crossroads - the scheme is vital as it is As stated in the Issues and Options Do not protect land for very dangerous. booklet, there is no clear advantage in a new road proposals at major infrastructure scheme over the Rudston Parva alternative traffic management measures, crossroads on the so land need not be reserved. The A614. No specific Council is looking to introduce Safety further action required. Cameras along th A614 in 2007 and the whole route will be subject to speed enforcement, which should improve the situation at these crossroads. Mrs Jean Mayland Support with conditions (Barmston & Fraisthorpe Parish Council) 1523 1951 No Noted. No specific further action required. Julie Abraham Other 427 1965 A164 - safeguard for widening to the Humber Bridge Support noted. A major transport bid for Land outside the A1079 route improvement of the Beverley highway boundary Bypass/Humber Bridge section has been required for the endorsed by the Regional Transport preferred scheme is Board. being considered for safeguarding through the Allocations DPD. No specific further action required. Mrs M. Barker Support with conditions (North Ferriby Parish Council) 1525 1979 The response from this council is to welcome the Safeguarding parts of the A1079 was to Consider the extent of safeguarding of parts of the A1079 to allow future allow safety measures to be introduced, safeguarding for A1079 development. The proposed roundabout at the end of not more development, otherwise the road schemes and the Hodsow Lane/ Allerthorpe junction with A1079 should situation would never improve. Other Hull-Beverley-York also be safeguarded. In relation to the proposed route measures may be necessary to allow railway, if these Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 53 of the railway line this council are concerned that, if more development in the A1079/A166 schemes are to be built, this would impinge on the gliding club. corridor. Land for the railway would have protected in the LDF. Councillors were concerned that affected minimal impact on the gliding club. The landowners/occupiers have not been given details of land has not yet been formally the proposals of the safeguarded routes. safeguarded, but maps were included in the Issues and Options consultation booklet and have been in the public domain since the consultants' report into the line's potential for re-opening was reported to Council Members. Mr Richard Wood Support with conditions (Pocklington Town Council) 1528 1994 A1079 - fully dualled These comments are noted. Consider the extent of safeguarding for A1079 road schemes and the Hull-Beverley-York railway, if these schemes are to be protected in the LDF. Mr Ian Pitcher Observations (Melbourne Parish Railway - money better spent on improving road & Council) transport infrastructure. 838 2030 No Noted. No specific further action required. Mrs D. Beare Other (Hook Parish Council) 1533 2061 Our clients object in the strongest possible terms at proposals which will: Mrs Firth Object 1 Require the demolition of perfectly good housing Whether or not any, or how much, Protect a revised route stock. demolition would be required is not known to the north Market at this stage. The definition of any firm Weighton in the LDF. route would need further, more detailed work to be carried out before it could be progressed and would include engineering issues in the Londesborough Road area - which it is noted lies along a ridge of rising ground that crosses the suggested line of the railway. However, Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 54 this concern has prompted a review of the route in the north Market Weighton area and it is considered that an alternative alignment may actually be possible, much as suggested by the objectors. In view of the fact that it would appear to have no direct effect on property, it is suggested that an amended route be protected to the north of Market Weighton, rather than the one shown in the Issues and Options booklet. 2 Have an adverse impact on property values by the This is not strictly a Planning issue, as Protect a revised route presence of a railway line in proximity to the remaining there are mechanisms to deal with to the north Market houses. impacts on an existing property of any Weighton in the LDF new transport link, following its construction. 1532 3 Have a severely detrimental effect upon the This should not be a determining issue, Protect a revised route marketability of all the houses until the plan is as there are mechanisms to deal with the to the north Market confirmed and implemented, or abandoned. financial impacts, on an existing property, Weighton in the LDF of proposals in a development plan. A Faulkes (Crombie Wilkinson It must be recognised that, with the best of intentions, It is not agreed that the line is never likely Protect a revised route Solicitors) it must be more unlikely than likely that the plan will to be implemented, although it has always to the north Market ever be implemented. That being so our clients and been accepted that there is little likelihood Weighton in the LDF their neighbours would be put to financial loss of the of the route being put back in the reduced value of their properties caused by the foreseeable future, as national and protected line of the railway. regional rail prioriites lie elsewhere at the moment. However, national planning guidance still requires local planning authorities to safeguard potential future links, as policy positions can (and do) change - especially in a world of uncertain resources. As stated above, it is probably possible to revise the route in the area to the north of Market Weighton, which should allay the concerns of the objector in respect of Londesborough Road. It is still considered important to safeguard the route overall, because It is probably a simple fact that, if a route is not protected now it never will be, since

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 55 there are now no realistic alternatives that could be taken up in the future, should any of it now be developed.

Our clients do recognise that the Authority has a In commissioning the Re-Opening Study, Protect a revised route responsibility to plan for future transport needs. They along with the other authorities, the to the north Market also recognise that it is appropriate that a responsible Council was adopting a responsible Weighton in the LDF. attitude is taken by Forward Planners which involves attitude in attempting to establish some the reduction of harmful, environmentally damaging hard facts (rather than relying on emissions. With that in mind, it may be that increased unfounded opinions) about the re-opening use of rail transport would be less environmentally proposition The objector's response to harmful. They would suggest that if a railway line were the Issues and Options booklet perhaps to be proposed, it would have far less impact on the acknowledges that the Council's approach built environment of Market Weighton if the route was justified - though understandably crossed Londesborough Road to the north of the unwelcome, given the effect the existing housing and then proceeded in a southerly suggested route could have had on the direction, roughly as we have, marked on the respondent's property. In response to enclosed copy plan. the objector's suggestion, however and as stated above, it is probably possible to revise the route in the area to the north of Market Weighton, which should allay the concerns of the objector in respect of Londesborough Road.

We should be grateful of you would take these The response will be taken into account. representations into account , notwithstanding the fact that the time for consultation responses ended in November, as we understand that you are only at the very early stage of considering the consultation responses. 1535 2065 Our clients object in the strongest possible terms at proposals which will: Mr & Mrs Ray Object 1 Require the demolition of perfectly good housing Whether or not any, or how much, Protect a revised route stock. demolition would be required is not known to the north Market at this stage. The definition of any firm Weighton in the LDF route would need further, more detailed work to be carried out before it could be progressed and would include engineering issues in the Londesborough Road area - which it is noted lies along a ridge of rising ground that crosses the

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 56 suggested line of the railway. However, this concern has prompted a review of the route in the north Market Weighton area and it is considered that an alternative alignment may actually be possible, much as suggested by the objectors. In view of the fact that it would appear to have no direct effect on property, it is suggested that an amended route be protected to the north of Market Weighton, rather than the one shown in the Issues and Options booklet. 2 Have an adverse impact on property values by the This is not strictly a Planning issue, as Protect a revised route presence of a railway line in proximity to the remaining there are mechanisms to deal with to the north Market houses. impacts on an existing property of any Weighton in the LDF new transport link, following its construction. 1532 3 Have a severely detrimental effect upon the This should not be a determining issue, Protect a revised route marketability of all the houses until the plan is as there are mechanisms to deal with the to the north Market confirmed and implemented, or abandoned. financial impacts, on an existing property, Weighton in the LDF of proposals in a development plan. A Faulkes (Crombie Wilkinson It must be recognised that, with the best of intentions, It is not agreed that the line is never likely Protect a revised route Solicitors) it must be more unlikely than likely that the plan will to be implemented, although it has always to the north Market ever be implemented. That being so our clients and been accepted that there is little likelihood Weighton in the LDF their neighbours would be put to financial loss of the of the route being put back in the reduced value of their properties caused by the foreseeable future, as national and protected line of the railway. regional rail prioriites lie elsewhere at the moment. However, national planning guidance still requires local planning authorities to safeguard potential future links, as policy positions can (and do) change - especially in a world of uncertain resources. As stated above, it is probably possible to revise the route in the area to the north of Market Weighton, which should allay the concerns of the objector in respect of Londesborough Road. It is still considered important to safeguard the route overall, because It is probably a simple fact that, if a route is

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 57 not protected now it never will be, since there are now no realistic alternatives that could be taken up in the future, should any of it now be developed.

Our clients do recognise that the Authority has a In commissioning the Re-Opening Study, Protect a revised route responsibility to plan for future transport needs. They along with the other authorities, the to the north Market also recognise that it is appropriate that a responsible Council was adopting a responsible Weighton in the LDF attitude is taken by Forward Planners which involves attitude in attempting to establish some the reduction of harmful, environmentally damaging hard facts (rather than relying on emissions. With that in mind, it may be that increased unfounded opinions) about the re-opening use of rail transport would be less environmentally proposition Th objector's response to the harmful. They would suggest that if a railway line were Issues and Options booklet perhaps to be proposed, it would have far less impact on the acknowledges that the Council's approach built environment of Market Weighton if the route was justified - though understandably crossed Londesborough Road to the north of the unwelcome, given the effect the existing housing and then proceeded in a southerly suggested route could have had on the direction, roughly as we have, marked on the respondent's property. In response to enclosed copy plan. the objector's suggestion, however and as stated above, it is probably possible to revise the route in the area to the north of Market Weighton, which should allay the concerns of the objector in respect of Londesborough Road.

We should be grateful of you would take these The response will be taken into account. representations into account , notwithstanding the fact that the time for consultation responses ended in November, as we understand that you are only at the very early stage of considering the consultation responses. 1536 2066 Our clients object in the strongest possible terms at proposals which will: Mr & Mrs Sissons Object 1 Require the demolition of perfectly good housing Whether or not any, or how much, Protect a revised route stock. demolition would be required is not known to the north Market at this stage. The definition of any firm Weighton in the LDF route would need further, more detailed work to be carried out before it could be progressed and would include engineering issues in the Londesborough Road area - which it is noted lies along a

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 58 ridge of rising ground that crosses the suggested line of the railway. However, this concern has prompted a review of the route in the north Market Weighton area and it is considered that an alternative alignment may actually be possible, much as suggested by the objectors. In view of the fact that it would appear to have no direct effect on property, it is suggested that an amended route be protected to the north of Market Weighton, rather than the one shown in the Issues and Options booklet. 2 Have an adverse impact on property values by the This is not strictly a Planning issue, as Protect a revised route presence of a railway line in proximity to the remaining there are mechanisms to deal with to the north Market houses. impacts on an existing property of any Weighton in the LDF new transport link, following its construction. 1532 3 Have a severely detrimental effect upon the This should not be a determining issue, Protect a revised route marketability of all the houses until the plan is as there are mechanisms to deal with the to the north Market confirmed and implemented, or abandoned. financial impacts, on an existing property, Weighton in the LDF of proposals in a development plan. A Faulkes (Crombie Wilkinson It must be recognised that, with the best of intentions, It is not agreed that the line is never likely Protect a revised route Solicitors) it must be more unlikely than likely that the plan will to be implemented, although it has always to the north Market ever be implemented. That being so our clients and been accepted that there is little likelihood Weighton in the LDF their neighbours would be put to financial loss of the of the route being put back in the reduced value of their properties caused by the foreseeable future, as national and protected line of the railway. regional rail prioriites lie elsewhere at the moment. However, national planning guidance still requires local planning authorities to safeguard potential future links, as policy positions can (and do) change - especially in a world of uncertain resources. As stated above, it is probably possible to revise the route in the area to the north of Market Weighton, which should allay the concerns of the objector in respect of Londesborough Road. It is still considered important to safeguard the route overall, because It is

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 59 probably a simple fact that, if a route is not protected now it never will be, since there are now no realistic alternatives that could be taken up in the future, should any of it now be developed.

Our clients do recognise that the Authority has a In commissioning the Re-Opening Study, Protect a revised route responsibility to plan for future transport needs. They along with the other authorities, the to the north Market also recognise that it is appropriate that a responsible Council was adopting a responsible Weighton in the LDF attitude is taken by Forward Planners which involves attitude in attempting to establish some the reduction of harmful, environmentally damaging hard facts (rather than relying on emissions. With that in mind, it may be that increased unfounded opinions) about the re-opening use of rail transport would be less environmentally proposition Th objector's response to the harmful. They would suggest that if a railway line were Issues and Options booklet perhaps to be proposed, it would have far less impact on the acknowledges that the Council's approach built environment of Market Weighton if the route was justified - though understandably crossed Londesborough Road to the north of the unwelcome, given the effect the existing housing and then proceeded in a southerly suggested route could have had on the direction, roughly as we have, marked on the respondent's property. In response to enclosed copy plan. the objector's suggestion, however and as stated above, it is probably possible to revise the route in the area to the north of Market Weighton, which should allay the concerns of the objector in respect of Londesborough Road.

We should be grateful of you would take these The response will be taken into account. representations into account , notwithstanding the fact that the time for consultation responses ended in November, as we understand that you are only at the very early stage of considering the consultation responses. 1537 2067 Our clients object in the strongest possible terms at proposals which will: Mr & Mrs Holmes Object 1 Require the demolition of perfectly good housing Whether or not any, or how much, Protect a revised route stock. demolition would be required is not known to the north Market at this stage. The definition of any firm Weighton in the LDF route would need further, more detailed work to be carried out before it could be progressed and would include engineering issues in the Londesborough

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 60 Road area - which it is noted lies along a ridge of rising ground that crosses the suggested line of the railway. However, this concern has prompted a review of the route in the north Market Weighton area and it is considered that an alternative alignment may actually be possible, much as suggested by the objectors. In view of the fact that it would appear to have no direct effect on property, it is suggested that an amended route be protected to the north of Market Weighton, rather than the one shown in the Issues and Options booklet. 2 Have an adverse impact on property values by the This is not strictly a Planning issue, as Protect a revised route presence of a railway line in proximity to the remaining there are mechanisms to deal with to the north Market houses. impacts on an existing property of any Weighton in the LDF new transport link, following its construction. 1532 3 Have a severely detrimental effect upon the This should not be a determining issue, Protect a revised route marketability of all the houses until the plan is as there are mechanisms to deal with the to the north Market confirmed and implemented, or abandoned. financial impacts, on an existing property, Weighton in the LDF of proposals in a development plan. A Faulkes (Crombie Wilkinson It must be recognised that, with the best of intentions, It is not agreed that the line is never likely Protect a revised route Solicitors) it must be more unlikely than likely that the plan will to be implemented, although it has always to the north Market ever be implemented. That being so our clients and been accepted that there is little likelihood Weighton in the LDF their neighbours would be put to financial loss of the of the route being put back in the reduced value of their properties caused by the foreseeable future, as national and protected line of the railway. regional rail prioriites lie elsewhere at the moment. However, national planning guidance still requires local planning authorities to safeguard potential future links, as policy positions can (and do) change - especially in a world of uncertain resources. As stated above, it is probably possible to revise the route in the area to the north of Market Weighton, which should allay the concerns of the objector in respect of Londesborough Road. It is still considered important to

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 61 safeguard the route overall, because It is probably a simple fact that, if a route is not protected now it never will be, since there are now no realistic alternatives that could be taken up in the future, should any of it now be developed.

Our clients do recognise that the Authority has a In commissioning the Re-Opening Study, Protect a revised route responsibility to plan for future transport needs. They along with the other authorities, the to the north Market also recognise that it is appropriate that a responsible Council was adopting a responsible Weighton in the LDF attitude is taken by Forward Planners which involves attitude in attempting to establish some the reduction of harmful, environmentally damaging hard facts (rather than relying on emissions. With that in mind, it may be that increased unfounded opinions) about the re-opening use of rail transport would be less environmentally proposition Th objector's response to the harmful. They would suggest that if a railway line were Issues and Options booklet perhaps to be proposed, it would have far less impact on the acknowledges that the Council's approach built environment of Market Weighton if the route was justified - though understandably crossed Londesborough Road to the north of the unwelcome, given the effect the existing housing and then proceeded in a southerly suggested route could have had on the direction, roughly as we have, marked on the respondent's property. In response to enclosed copy plan. the objector's suggestion, however and as stated above, it is probably possible to revise the route in the area to the north of Market Weighton, which should allay the concerns of the objector in respect of Londesborough Road.

We should be grateful of you would take these The response will be taken into account. representations into account , notwithstanding the fact that the time for consultation responses ended in November, as we understand that you are only at the very early stage of considering the consultation responses. 1538 2068 Our clients object in the strongest possible terms at proposals which will: Mr & Mrs Object 1 Require the demolition of perfectly good housing Whether or not any, or how much, Protect a revised route Stephenson stock. demolition would be required is not known to the north Market at this stage. The definition of any firm Weighton in the LDF route would need further, more detailed work to be carried out before it could be progressed and would include

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 62 engineering issues in the Londesborough Road area - which it is noted lies along a ridge of rising ground that crosses the suggested line of the railway. However, this concern has prompted a review of the route in the north Market Weighton area and it is considered that an alternative alignment may actually be possible, much as suggested by the objectors. In view of the fact that it would appear to have no direct effect on property, it is suggested that an amended route be protected to the north of Market Weighton, rather than the one shown in the Issues and Options booklet. 2 Have an adverse impact on property values by the This is not strictly a Planning issue, as Protect a revised route presence of a railway line in proximity to the remaining there are mechanisms to deal with to the north Market houses. impacts on an existing property of any Weighton in the LDF new transport link, following its construction. 1532 3 Have a severely detrimental effect upon the This should not be a determining issue, Protect a revised route marketability of all the houses until the plan is as there are mechanisms to deal with the to the north Market confirmed and implemented, or abandoned. financial impacts, on an existing property, Weighton in the LDF of proposals in a development plan. A Faulkes (Crombie Wilkinson It must be recognised that, with the best of intentions, It is not agreed that the line is never likely Protect a revised route Solicitors) it must be more unlikely than likely that the plan will to be implemented, although it has always to the north Market ever be implemented. That being so our clients and been accepted that there is little likelihood Weighton in the LDF their neighbours would be put to financial loss of the of the route being put back in the reduced value of their properties caused by the foreseeable future, as national and protected line of the railway. regional rail prioriites lie elsewhere at the moment. However, national planning guidance still requires local planning authorities to safeguard potential future links, as policy positions can (and do) change - especially in a world of uncertain resources. As stated above, it is probably possible to revise the route in the area to the north of Market Weighton, which should allay the concerns of the objector in respect of Londesborough

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 63 Road. It is still considered important to safeguard the route overall, because It is probably a simple fact that, if a route is not protected now it never will be, since there are now no realistic alternatives that could be taken up in the future, should any of it now be developed.

Our clients do recognise that the Authority has a In commissioning the Re-Opening Study, Protect a revised route responsibility to plan for future transport needs. They along with the other authorities, the to the north Market also recognise that it is appropriate that a responsible Council was adopting a responsible Weighton in the LDF attitude is taken by Forward Planners which involves attitude in attempting to establish some the reduction of harmful, environmentally damaging hard facts (rather than relying on emissions. With that in mind, it may be that increased unfounded opinions) about the re-opening use of rail transport would be less environmentally proposition Th objector's response to the harmful. They would suggest that if a railway line were Issues and Options booklet perhaps to be proposed, it would have far less impact on the acknowledges that the Council's approach built environment of Market Weighton if the route was justified - though understandably crossed Londesborough Road to the north of the unwelcome, given the effect the existing housing and then proceeded in a southerly suggested route could have had on the direction, roughly as we have, marked on the respondent's property. In response to enclosed copy plan. the objector's suggestion, however and as stated above, it is probably possible to revise the route in the area to the north of Market Weighton, which should allay the concerns of the objector in respect of Londesborough Road.

We should be grateful of you would take these The response will be taken into account. representations into account , notwithstanding the fact that the time for consultation responses ended in November, as we understand that you are only at the very early stage of considering the consultation responses. 1534 2069 Our clients object in the strongest possible terms at proposals which will: Mr & Mrs K Object 1 Require the demolition of perfectly good housing Whether or not any, or how much, Protect a revised route Parsons stock. demolition would be required is not known to the north Market at this stage. The definition of any firm Weighton in the LDF route would need further, more detailed work to be carried out before it could be

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 64 progressed and would include engineering issues in the Londesborough Road area - which it is noted lies along a ridge of rising ground that crosses the suggested line of the railway. However, this concern has prompted a review of the route in the north Market Weighton area and it is considered that an alternative alignment may actually be possible, much as suggested by the objectors. In view of the fact that it would appear to have no direct effect on property, it is suggested that an amended route be protected to the north of Market Weighton, rather than the one shown in the Issues and Options booklet. 2 Have an adverse impact on property values by the This is not strictly a Planning issue, as Protect a revised route presence of a railway line in proximity to the remaining there are mechanisms to deal with to the north Market houses. impacts on an existing property of any Weighton in the LDF new transport link, following its construction. 1532 3 Have a severely detrimental effect upon the This should not be a determining issue, Protect a revised route marketability of all the houses until the plan is as there are mechanisms to deal with the to the north Market confirmed and implemented, or abandoned. financial impacts, on an existing property, Weighton in the LDF of proposals in a development plan. A Faulkes (Crombie Wilkinson It must be recognised that, with the best of intentions, It is not agreed that the line is never likely Protect a revised route Solicitors) it must be more unlikely than likely that the plan will to be implemented, although it has always to the north Market ever be implemented. That being so our clients and been accepted that there is little likelihood Weighton in the LDF their neighbours would be put to financial loss of the of the route being put back in the reduced value of their properties caused by the foreseeable future, as national and protected line of the railway. regional rail prioriites lie elsewhere at the moment. However, national planning guidance still requires local planning authorities to safeguard potential future links, as policy positions can (and do) change - especially in a world of uncertain resources. As stated above, it is probably possible to revise the route in the area to the north of Market Weighton, which should allay the concerns of the

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 65 objector in respect of Londesborough Road. It is still considered important to safeguard the route overall, because It is probably a simple fact that, if a route is not protected now it never will be, since there are now no realistic alternatives that could be taken up in the future, should any of it now be developed.

Our clients do recognise that the Authority has a In commissioning the Re-Opening Study, Protect a revised route responsibility to plan for future transport needs. They along with the other authorities, the to the north Market also recognise that it is appropriate that a responsible Council was adopting a responsible Weighton in the LDF attitude is taken by Forward Planners which involves attitude in attempting to establish some the reduction of harmful, environmentally damaging hard facts (rather than relying on emissions. With that in mind, it may be that increased unfounded opinions) about the re-opening use of rail transport would be less environmentally proposition Th objector's response to the harmful. They would suggest that if a railway line were Issues and Options booklet perhaps to be proposed, it would have far less impact on the acknowledges that the Council's approach built environment of Market Weighton if the route was justified - though understandably crossed Londesborough Road to the north of the unwelcome, given the effect the existing housing and then proceeded in a southerly suggested route could have had on the direction, roughly as we have, marked on the respondent's property. In response to enclosed copy plan. the objector's suggestion, however and as stated above, it is probably possible to revise the route in the area to the north of Market Weighton, which should allay the concerns of the objector in respect of Londesborough Road.

We should be grateful of you would take these The response will be taken into account. representations into account , notwithstanding the fact that the time for consultation responses ended in November, as we understand that you are only at the very early stage of considering the consultation responses. 391 2070 Following debate, it was unanimously approved that Support for the principle is noted, but Protect a revised route Members agree in principle, but do not agree with the there is very little room for manoeuvre in to the north Market proposed route terms of the suggested route at Market Weighton in the LDF Weighton, due to the local topography. However, as stated above, it is probably possible to revise the route in the area in

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 66 the northern part of the town, which should allay the Council's concerns (if these are in respect of Londesborough Road). Support with Mrs T Simms conditions (Market Weighton Town Council) 1254 2071 We are supportive of such a rail link if a route can be Support for the Hull to York railway route Continue to protect a found to achieve the aim - particularly as we own the is noted and welcomed. route for a future Hull - old station and would now find it extremely difficult to Beverley - York railway function without it! line. Mr P Bennett Support with I believe it fair to point out that the proposed route The need to replace playing fields conditions drawn in the document cuts across playing fields affected by development is acknowledged belonging to this school and, as Sport England has a and dealt with in the LDF. There is no statutory obligation to object to any development that intention of reducing the amount of threatens school playing fields, you may wish to playing fields, which would have to be consider where you would provide alternative fields. I replaced in very close proximity to those don't know if the fact that the land is the permanent lost. endowment of a registered charity also impacts on your thinking. (Pocklington I know that this is a long way in the future, but Such a major project as a new railway line In the Allocations DPD School) suppose these issues could be addressed sooner would be undertaken through the should consider the rather than later. Transport & Works Act which includes allocation of procedures to deal with land acquisition replacement school involving different forms of tenure. playing fields between the school's existing playing fields and the protected route on agricultural land south of Barmby Road 1551 2072 I am writing regarding the Hull to York railway line. I Support for the Hull to York railway route If the rail scheme is to believe that it is currently out to consultation. I am is noted and welcomed. be protected in the writing to record my support for the proposal to re- LDF, the extent of open the line. I believe it would be of enormous protection needs benefit to Hull and the East Riding. careful consideration. Ms Diana Johnson Support I hope that the consultation is a successful one and MP that the East Riding continues to protect the route of the line. I am also writing to the Chief Executives of Hull and Ryedale councils to urge that they do anything they can to support the proposals

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 67

Question T3 266 18 We feel that there is a degree of risk that rural It is agreed that there is a degree of risk If the rail scheme is to sections of the route may be prejudiced by even though many transport schemes be protected in the developments excepted from these rural prohibitions. such as the possible railway run through LDF, it is agreed that 'open countryside'. The extent of this the extent of protection perhaps needs to be looked at again. needs careful consideration. Mr Philip Taylor Support with However it is recognised that the Council may have to conditions prioritise the use of its resources and that diversions would probably be available should these rural sections be redeveloped despite the Council's best efforts to protect them through the planning process. (Minsters Rail In those circumstances the Council has correctly Campaign) given priority to protecting the sections of line the Council has identified in Appendix 2 at and near Stamford Bridge, Pocklington, Market Weighton and Beverley. The Council should get City of York Council to afford Comment re City of York Council noted Approach City of York LDF protection to the critical connection with the and agreed, as the junction with the York- and Ryedale Councils Scarborough line just south west of Haxby and its Scarborough line is obviously of critical to see if specific route approaches. importance - as are sections in Ryedale protection is possible, district, where the route would pass as both stretches would through an existing cutting that was part be particularly critical of the former route to the north west of elements of the Stamford Bridge, north of Gate Helmsley. scheme. 569 33 Yes Noted. Keep safeguarding allocations in the 'countryside' to the minimum that is necessary to fully protect future Transport Schemes Christine A Brown Support 465 62 Yes Noted. Keep safeguardingallocations in the 'countryside' to the minimum that is necessary to fully protect future Transport Schemes Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 68 Mrs K. Richmond Support (South Cave Parish Council) 248 83 Yes Noted. Keep safeguardingallocations in the 'countryside' to the minimum that is necessary to fully protect future Transport Schemes Mrs C. Hird Support (Snaith and Cowick Parish Council) 1022 97 Yes Noted. Keep safeguardingallocations in the 'countryside' to the minimum that is necessary to fully protect future Transport Schemes Mr Graham Lenton Support 306 110 No, not for smaller settlements, if focus was put on In essence, the policy suggested by the Continue with the improving the transport system to towns and respondent is that which is being approach set out in the encouraging local business back, you would not have followed, in accordance with the RSS emerging Core Strategy the need for such drastic transport schemes settlement hierarchy - which encourages and RSS. exactly this approach. Ms Nicola Salvidge Observations (Sigglesthorne CE VC Primary School) 1413 123 Agree, but need to extend to rural areas Noted. Keep safeguarding/allocation s in the 'countryside' to the minimum that is necessary to fully protect future Transport Schemes Ms Nicola Salvidge Support with (Seaton PC) conditions 426 157 Yes Noted. Keep safeguarding/allocation s in the 'countryside' to Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 69 the minimum that is necessary to fully protect future Transport Schemes Mrs M. Barker Support (Swanland Parish Council) 1422 217 Yes Noted. Keep safeguardingallocations in the 'countryside' to the minimum that is necessary to fully protect future Transport Schemes Mr Steve Knifton Support (Leconfield Parish Council) 1019 230 Yes Noted. Keep safeguardingallocations in the 'countryside' to the minimum that is necessary to fully protect future Transport Schemes Miss K. E. Laister Support (Ferriby Conservation Society) 845 244 Yes Noted. Keep safeguardingallocations in the 'countryside' to the minimum that is necessary to fully protect future Transport Schemes Mrs D. E. Franks Support (Paull Parish Council) 350 272 Yes Noted. Keep safeguardingallocations in the 'countryside' to Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 70 the minimum that is necessary to fully protect future Transport Schemes Mrs K. Soltys Support (Mappleton Parish Council) 843 287 The Council have a concern as to whether sufficient A great deal of importance is given to Continue with the importance is given to rural areas rural issues in such a large rural authority approach set out in the and is reflected in the emerging Core emerging Core Strategy. Strategy. Mrs K. Roe Observations (Langtoft Parish Council) 1426 348 No specific comments Noted. No specific further action. George Wimpey Other PLC 1425 Ms Liz Beighton (Spawforths) 1431 362 No specific comments Noted. No specific further action. Miller Strategic Other Land 1425 Ms Liz Beighton (Spawforths) 1430 376 No specific comments Noted. No specific further action. Mr Cowton Other 1425 Ms Liz Beighton (Spawforths) 863 419 Why not the ‘countryside’. Surely it is the rural villages Much effort is already going into rural Continue with the that need better public transport links. If trains were transport through the LTP. approach set out in the regular, safe and clean people in rural areas would emerging Core Strategy use them as opposed to private motor vehicle? which supports the LTP. Ms Samantha Observations

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 71 Dunwell (Fridaythorpe Parish Council) 1435 434 Yes Noted. Keep safeguardingallocations in the 'countryside' to the minimum that is necessary to fully protect future Transport Schemes Mrs H Hook Support 1437 448 No comment Noted. No specific further action. Unknown Other (Albanwise Ltd) 1436 Mr Michael O'Connell (Entec UK Ltd) 1442 498 Yes but feel that consideration should be given to Presumably, what is meant here is road No specific further protecting areas for future transport schemes around schemes for all villages. This is just not action. all villages with busy 'A' class roads running through feasible - and could even make things them worse, as new or 'improved' roads simply tend to attract new additional traffic - not just make it easier for existing traffic to move about. W Buckle Support with conditions (Wetwang Parish Council) 1443 515 Yes Noted. Keep safeguardingallocations in the 'countryside' to the minimum that is necessary to fully protect future Transport Schemes Ms Sarah Watson Support (Sigglesthorne Parish Council) 1429 607 Insufficiently detailed to make comment Noted. No specific further Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 72 action. Mr John Winter Other 833 705 Yes Noted. Keep safeguardingallocations in the 'countryside' to the minimum that is necessary to fully protect future Transport Schemes Ms H. Harvatt Support (Hollym Parish Council) 1452 719 No. We all know that developers should not be Noted. Keep abreast of underestimated, and government policy can change at Government Policy and any time. react accordingly, including revising DPDs as necessary. Cllr Winifred I Observations Knight The full route of the Beverley to York rail line needs to Noted. At the York end, an alternative Reconsider the extent be protected NOW. If you investigate the route you route to the south of Haxby was identified of safeguarding in the will find encroachments in the open countryside, while in the Rail Re-opening Study and it is that LDF and approach City in York, at Huntington, the route has disappeared and new route which would be expected to of York Council about negotiations for an alternative need to begin form the crucial link to the York via the route protection for the existing York - Scarborough line. It is critical link to the York- agreed that the former route through Scarborough line at Huntington and New Earswick is now too Haxby in their Local developed to be feasible. Development Framework. 1464 822 Yes Noted. Keep safeguardingallocations in the 'countryside' to the minimum that is necessary to fully protect future Transport Schemes Stephanie Marriott Support (Hornsea and District Chamber of Trade) 480 884 Yes Noted. Keep Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 73 safeguardingallocations in the 'countryside' to the minimum that is necessary to fully protect future Transport Schemes Mrs J. Support Heathershaw (Hornsea Residents Association) 1474 1211 Yes Noted. Keep safeguardingallocations in the 'countryside' to the minimum that is necessary to fully protect future Transport Schemes Sue Atkins Support (Middleton on the Wolds Parish Council) 1499 1454 This question seemed too complex to be capable of Noted. No specific action response by a committee. required. Mr David Horsley Other (Beverley Town Council) 1502 1499 It is hard to see vast amounts of land needing to be Noted. Keep protected in a rural location any developments for safeguardingallocations transport in such an area would be small scale in the 'countryside' to the minimum that is necessary to fully protect future Transport Schemes J Burnett Observations (East Cottingwith Parish Council) 1482 1587 No extra strengthened policies are needed to protect Noted. Reconsider the extent transport schemes in the ‘countryside’. of safeguarding at the Preferred Options stage. Mr James Durham Observations Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 74 (Hull City Council) 1511 1652 Yes Noted. Keep safeguardingallocations in the 'countryside' to the minimum that is necessary to fully protect future Transport Schemes Mr Peter Lacy Support 1450 1676 Yes Noted. Keep safeguardingallocations in the 'countryside' to the minimum that is necessary to fully protect future Transport Schemes Mrs Val Wood Support (Anlaby with Anlaby Common Parish Council) 1513 1695 Future transport schemes should seek to reuse Noted, but this reply does not give a view No specific action existing infrastucture, as in the case of the reopening on the strength of current Planning policy required. of the York to Hull railway, before proposing new vis-à-vis the protection of Transport roads and transport links. Schemes. Melrose PLC Observations 110 Mr Andy Brown (MCP Planning and Development) 1517 1752 Countryside policies in themselves may conflict with Noted. Keep land allocations future transport projects. However, in certain for the safeguarding of circumstances there may be a need to promote any Transport scheme improved transportation to deliver wider benefits in the 'countryside' to the minimum necessary to protect that scheme fully Mr Joseph Observations Richardson (Jos Richardson & Son Ltd) 554 1772 The key issue in relation to the safeguarding of land in These comments by the Highways Reconsider the extent Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 75 the countryside relates to whether policy DS5 of the Agency and Halcrow are noted and are of safeguarding in the Joint Structure Plan provides the necessary protection important observations, as they are LDF. that affords the policy within this DPD document to probably correct. neglect considering the countryside areas. (*NB - words added by ERYC to better convey the intention of this observation) Mr Graham Observations Having considered the content of policy DS5, the Titchener Agency considers that total protection for the transport (Highways Agency) schemes is not provided purely by the restriction of development in policy DS5. It is considered that any development that fulfills any of the five criteria within policy DS5 could be developed without any regard to the location of transport schemes. It is therefore considered that policy DS5 does not offer the required protection for these transport schemes. 1518 Mr Ashley Stratford (Halcrow Group Ltd) 1514 1816 Such constraints are obviously limiting. However with Noted. Keep other pressures on green space for housing and safeguardingallocations commercial developments this Council believes that in the 'countryside' to there would have to be a paramount need before any the minimum that is countryside protection policies should be breached necessary to fully protect future Transport Schemes Hedon Town Observations Council (Hedon Town Council) 1521 1838 This question is very difficult to answer as you are not The Transport Strategy does cover all No specific action clear as to the transport strategy does not adequately forms of transport including freight. required. Mr Douglas E Observations consider other forms of transport and their links and Kendall access, e.g. rivers, railways and inland waterways. (North Cave Parish Council) 1475 1853 I agree with T3a & T4g < ie. Longstanding Noted, but this reply does not give a view The Old Goole Bypass bypass schemes for Old Goole > on the question that was asked ie. scheme(s) is unlikely to strength of current Planning policy vis-à- come forward as it vis the protection of Transport Schemes. requires developer Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 76 However, now that the Dutch River Bridge funding, which is has been replaced by a new high unlikely to be available specification bridge, the need to protect to pay for this particular land for all the various Old Goole Bypass improvement. The schemes has reduced, as explained in the scheme cannot Issues and Options document atAppendix therefore be 1. safeguarded. Jean Kitchen Support 1522 1864 We feel that there is a degree of risk that rural It is agreed that there is a degree of risk. If the rail scheme is to sections of the York - Beverley railway route may be The extent of protection perhaps needs to be protected in the prejudiced by exempted developments. be looked at again. LDF, it is agreed that the extent of protection needs careful consideration. Mr A. M. Ross Observations However it is recognised that the Council may have to prioritise the use of it's resources and that diversions would probably be available should these rural sections be redeveloped despite the Council's best efforts to protect them through the planning process. (Hull & East Riding In those circumstances the Council has correctly Rail Users given priority to protecting the sections of the line the Association) Council has identified in Appendix 2 at or near Stamford Bridge, Pocklington, Market Weighton and Beverley. The Council should request City of York Council to Comment re City of York Council noted Approach City of York afford LDF protection to the critical connection with and agreed, as the junction with the York- and Ryedale Councils the Scarborough line just south west of Haxby and its Scarborough line is obviously of critical to see if specific route approaches. importance - as are sections in Ryedale protection is possible, district, where the route would pass as both stretches would through an existing cutting that was part be a critical elements of of the former route to the north west of the scheme. Stamford Bridge, north of Gate Helmsley. 484 1925 Yes in Local Plan not in DPD Noted, though perhaps the respondent Keep has not appreciated that the LDF will, in safeguardingallocations effect, become the new 'local plan'. in the 'countryside' to the minimum that is necessary to fully protect future Transport Schemes Mrs Jean Mayland Observations (Barmston & Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 77 Fraisthorpe Parish Council) 1523 1952 Yes Noted. Keep safeguardingallocations in the 'countryside' to the minimum that is necessary to fully protect future Transport Schemes Julie Abraham Support 427 1966 Yes Noted. Keep safeguardingallocations in the 'countryside' to the minimum that is necessary to fully protect future Transport Schemes Mrs M. Barker Support (North Ferriby Parish Council) 1528 1995 Yes Noted. Keep safeguardingallocations in the 'countryside' to the minimum that is necessary to fully protect future Transport Schemes Mr Ian Pitcher Support (Melbourne Parish Council) 838 2031 Yes Noted. Keep safeguardingallocations in the 'countryside' to the minimum that is necessary to fully protect future Transport Schemes Mrs D. Beare Support (Hook Parish Council)

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 78 Question T4 266 19 We feel that the protected rail link corridor at Stamford Noted, but this is outside the East Riding, Draw the attention of Bridge needs extending somewhat further towards so would require protection by Ryedale Ryedale District Council York along the Carl Bro recommended route. District Council in this area , where the to see if specific route route would pass through an existing protection is possible in cutting that was part of the former route to their Local the north west of Stamford Bridge (north Development of Gate Helmsley). Framework. Mr Philip Taylor Observations (Minsters Rail Campaign) 569 34 Protecting additional schemes - this should be further It is not clear which schemes. No specific further explored. action required. Christine A Brown Observations 465 63 No - Option put forward is acceptable. Would like to The emerging Core Strategy identifies this No specific further see protection for public transport nodes areas as the main approach for the whole LDF. action required. Mrs K. Richmond Support with conditions (South Cave Parish Council) 248 84 The Town Council believes that the rail line from It is agreed that this line is under used by Continue to investigate Knottingley to Snaith and ultimately to Goole should both passenger and freight services. with rail agencies be upgraded and the metro scheme extended to Extension of the 'Metro' service (with whether use of the line include Snaith subsidised prices etc) is unlikely at the can be intensified for present time, though there is liaison both freight and between the Council and the Train passenger use, Operating Company about services on including by passenger this line, which do not provide a service trains between Goole that can be used for work or school and Leeds. No land journeys at the present time and which do safeguarding required not, therefore, contribute to road traffic for this. reduction (when they could). Mrs C. Hird Observations (Snaith and Cowick Parish Council) 1022 98 No Noted. No specific further action required Mr Graham Lenton Other 306 111 As nothing will change drastically to improve public Noted. No specific further transport the proposed schemes must stay in place, action required

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 79 Ms Nicola Salvidge Observations but thought must be given to improving all routes, as (Sigglesthorne CE traffic, on all routes has been increasing VC Primary School) 1413 124 We need to keep all protection those on current and Noted. No specific further proposed schemes, also to include additional areas action required Ms Nicola Salvidge Observations (Seaton PC) 426 158 No Noted. No specific further action required Mrs M. Barker Other (Swanland Parish Council) 1422 218 No Noted. No specific further action required Mr Steve Knifton Other (Leconfield Parish Council) 1019 231 No comment Noted. No specific further action required Miss K. E. Laister Other (Ferriby Conservation Society) 350 273 No Noted. No specific further action required Mrs K. Soltys Other (Mappleton Parish Council) 843 288 Not sure Noted. No specific further action required Mrs K. Roe Other (Langtoft Parish Council) 1426 349 No specific comments Noted. No specific further action required George Wimpey Other PLC 1425 Ms Liz Beighton (Spawforths)

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 80 1431 363 No specific comments Noted. No specific further action required Miller Strategic Other Land 1425 Ms Liz Beighton (Spawforths) 1430 377 No specific comments Noted. No specific further action required Mr Cowton Other 1425 Ms Liz Beighton (Spawforths) 1429 388 Insufficiently detailed to make comment Noted. No specific further action required Mr John Winter Other 1435 435 No Noted. No specific further action required Mrs H Hook Other 1437 449 No comment Noted. No specific further action required Unknown Other (Albanwise Ltd) 1436 Mr Michael O'Connell (Entec UK Ltd) 1442 499 Keep the ones and add extra as previous answer. Noted. No specific further < NB - that answer (No. 498) said "protect areas for action required W Buckle Observations future transport schemesaround all villages with busy (Wetwang Parish 'A' class roads running through them" -ERYC > Council) 1443 520 No Noted. No specific further action required Ms Sarah Watson Other (Sigglesthorne Parish Council) 1452 731 Protect the proposed transport schemes Noted. No specific further action required Cllr Winifred I Observations

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 81 Knight 1464 823 No Noted. No specific further action required Stephanie Marriott Other (Hornsea and District Chamber of Trade) 480 887 No. It appears unlikely that any other schemes will be Noted. No specific further accepted. The list seems fair. action required Mrs J. Observations Heathershaw (Hornsea Residents Association) 1474 1212 No Noted. No specific further action required Sue Atkins Other (Middleton on the Wolds Parish Council) 1499 1456 This question seemed too complex to be capable of Noted. No specific further response by a committee except insofar as it is action required Mr David Horsley Other answered in our response to Q T2 (Beverley Town Council) 1502 1500 Perhaps another option would be to investigate an "Teleworking" is an approach that is No specific further entirely different infrastructure which would enable welcomed, but is not yet likely to have a action required, but home working rather than people gathering at a major effect on travel habits. The Council continue working with central office has been active for a number of years in the telecommunications working with the telecommunications industry to develop the industry to have broadband extended into broadband network in rural areas to enable teleworking to the East Riding. J Burnett Observations become a reality. There are no land (East Cottingwith use/spatial implictions. Parish Council) 1482 1588 A further scheme needs to be added for an east Hull These requests are noted and sites will Liaise further with Hull Mr James Durham Observations park and ride in the Hedon area (north or south of the be protected once known. City Council to identify (Hull City Council) A1033) adjacent to the western end of Hedon bypass. and safeguard Alternative sites are still under investigation. A park appropriate sites in the and ride site may be needed adjacent to Asda near Allocations DPD. Bilton. 1513 1696 Greater emphasis should be placed on the reuse of This is noted and agreed. No rail Identify on an Plan, Transport Development Plan Document Background R eport April 2010 82 existing infrastructure, such as the reopening of infrastructure should be removed unless important rail existing railway facilities absolutely necessary, as it can never be infrastructure such as known when it may be required again and sidings that have main is expensive to reintroduce once lost. line connections and Unfortunately, the removal of such associated signalling, infrastructure is beyond the scope of which in the Council's Planning control. The most that we can opinion should be do, therefore, is to liaise with the railway retained. Examples authorities and make them aware of our would be: existing major concerns about the removal of rail connection to sidings at infrastructure - especially pointwork, track Gibson Lane, Melton; and signalling. the southern bay platform at Brough; 'Engine Shed Junction' at Goole; the siding at Gilberdyke Station and; the bay platform and sidings at Bridlington Station - amongst others. Important civil engineering structures along the former Beverley to York route should be particularly highlighted and kept intact - eg. Kiplingcotes Viaduct, over bridge at Goodmanham, accomodation bridges, embankments, cuttings and drainage works along the route. NB the track was lifted from the Brough bay platforms in December 2007. Melrose PLC Observations

110 Mr Andy Brown (MCP Planning and Development)

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 83 1516 1709 Relates to Q T2 Mr & Mrs S Fletcher Observations Unless there is definite funding for the proposed This is noted and understood, but unless Reconsider the extent railway line, then, we feel that it will cause routes are protected at this stage for of safeguarding in the considerable 'blight' on the communities affected by possible future use, they are likely to be Allocations DPD. publications of articles such as the one mentioned lost to development - at the edges of above [T2] - and this will continue over a long period settlements especially - and then could of time. never be brought to fruition due to new development taking place there (as happened in respect of the former York to Beverley railway line at all the main settlements along its route). 1517 1753 No comment Noted. No specific further action required. Mr Joseph Other Richardson (Jos Richardson & Son Ltd) 554 1773 All schemes likely to be delivered and supporting the Noted. No specific further wider aims of the LDF should be included in the action required. Mr Graham Observations Transport DPD. The Agency is unaware of any other Titchener schemes that should also be considered (Highways Agency) 1518 Mr Ashley Stratford (Halcrow Group Ltd) 1521 1839 Not sufficient information it would be good to have It is not clear what this comment means. No specific further Mr Douglas E Observations examples of alternative options used elsewhere. action required. Kendall (North Cave Parish Council) 252 1900 We feel that the protected York - Beverley rail link Noted, but this is outside the East Riding, Draw the attention of corridor at Stamford Bridge needs extending so would require protection by Ryedale Ryedale District Council somewhat further towards York along the Carl Bro District Council in this area. to this comment for recommended route. action in their Local Development Framework. Mr T Ross Observations (Hull and East Riding Rail Users Association) Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 84 1472 1915 Transport schemes of similar status, matching similar This is true, but where we are unaware of As future schemes priorities, may arise in the future. Is there any reason future schemes we cannot protect them. arise and are why these should not be protected too? However, we could do so in the future by developed, amend amending any relevant DPD. DPD's as necessary. Jennifer Aird Observations (East Riding of Yorkshire & Kingston Upon Hull Joint Local Access Forum) 484 1926 Attention needs to be given to land protected in local Local Plans will soon be superseded, thus No specific further plan but not in DPD plan any schemes now need to be protected action required. Mrs Jean Mayland Observations by the Allocations DPD, rather than just (Barmston & the old local plans. Fraisthorpe Parish Council) 1523 1953 No No specific further Noted. action required. Julie Abraham Other 427 1967 No Noted. No specific further action required. Mrs M. Barker Other (North Ferriby Parish Council) 1528 1996 No comment Noted. No specific further action required. Mr Ian Pitcher Other (Melbourne Parish Council) 838 2032 No Noted. No specific further action required. Mrs D. Beare Other (Hook Parish Council)

Question T5 266 20 A band of interest and a narrower line should be used. Noted - both Consider further and Use of a narrower line alone may leave insufficient show appropriate land protected and cause uncertainty later. designation in the Allocations DPD.

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 85 Mr Philip Taylor Observations (Minsters Rail Campaign) 569 35 It is best to use as narrow a specification as possible Noted - narrow. Consider further and to avoid unnecessary planning blight. show appropriate designation in the Allocations DPD. Christine A Brown Observations 465 64 A 'Band of Interest' is the best designation Noted - band Consider further and show appropriate designation in the Allocations DPD. Mrs K. Richmond Observations (South Cave Parish Council) 248 85 Whichever is appropriate Noted - either Consider further and show appropriate designation in the Allocations DPD. Mrs C. Hird Observations (Snaith and Cowick Parish Council) 1022 99 No Noted. Consider further and show appropriate designation in the Allocations DPD. Mr Graham Lenton Other 306 112 Agree to all Noted - both. Consider further and show appropriate designation in the Allocations DPD. Ms Nicola Salvidge Observations (Sigglesthorne CE VC Primary School) 1413 125 You need to keep both to allow room to move should Noted - both Consider further and you need to, or to leave as a definite plan show appropriate designation in the Allocations DPD. Ms Nicola Salvidge Observations (Seaton PC)

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 86 426 159 No Noted. Consider further and show appropriate designation in the Allocations DPD. Mrs M. Barker Other (Swanland Parish Council) 1422 219 A 'band of interest' should be used Noted - band. Consider further and show appropriate designation in the Allocations DPD. Mr Steve Knifton Observations (Leconfield Parish Council) 1019 232 A 'Band of interest' should be safeguarded so that Noted - band. Consider further and there are more options when the time comes to show appropriate implement any particular Transport scheme designation in the Allocations DPD. Miss K. E. Laister Observations (Ferriby Conservation Society) 845 245 No Noted. Consider further and show appropriate designation in the Allocations DPD. Mrs D. E. Franks Other (Paull Parish Council) 845 246 'Band of Interest' Noted - band Consider further and show appropriate designation in the Allocations DPD. Mrs D. E. Franks Observations (Paull Parish Council) 350 274 'Band of Interest' Noted - band. Consider further and show appropriate designation in the Allocations DPD. Mrs K. Soltys Observations Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 87 (Mappleton Parish Council) 843 289 'Band of Interest' so that all interested parties know Noted - band. Consider further and how they may be affected show appropriate designation in the Allocations DPD. Mrs K. Roe Observations (Langtoft Parish Council) 1426 350 No specific comments Noted. Consider further and show appropriate designation in the Allocations DPD. George Wimpey Other PLC 1425 Ms Liz Beighton (Spawforths) 1431 364 No specific comments Noted. Consider further and show appropriate designation in the Allocations DPD. Miller Strategic Other Land 1425 Ms Liz Beighton (Spawforths) 1430 378 No specific comments Noted. Consider further and show appropriate designation in the Allocations DPD. Mr Cowton Other 1425 Ms Liz Beighton (Spawforths) 1429 389 Band of interest Noted - band. Consider further and show appropriate designation in the Allocations DPD. Mr John Winter Observations 863 421 Definitely use a ‘band of interest’ line – the more Noted - band. Consider further and Transport Development Plan Document Background R eport April 2010 88 possible outcomes shown the better. show appropriate designation in the Allocations DPD. Ms Samantha Observations Dunwell (Fridaythorpe Parish Council) 1435 436 Band of interest preferred Noted - band. Consider further and show appropriate designation in the Allocations DPD. Mrs H Hook Observations 1437 450 No comment Noted. Consider further and show appropriate designation in the Allocations DPD. Unknown Other (Albanwise Ltd) 1436 Mr Michael O'Connell (Entec UK Ltd) 1153 484 A 'Band of Interest' but it needs to be an adequate Noted - band. Consider further and piece of land for the proposals show appropriate designation in the Allocations DPD. Mr Richard Bryan Observations 1442 500 Band of interest Noted - band. Consider further and show appropriate designation in the Allocations DPD. W Buckle Observations (Wetwang Parish Council) 1443 521 Band of Interest Noted - band. Consider further and show appropriate designation in the Allocations DPD. Ms Sarah Watson Observations (Sigglesthorne Parish Council) Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 89 833 706 Both Noted - both. Consider further and show appropriate designation in the Allocations DPD. Ms H. Harvatt Observations (Hollym Parish Council) 1452 739 Use a 'band of interest'. Look at the land used for Noted - band. Consider further and burying a pipelines: a strip 40 metres wide! show appropriate designation in the Allocations DPD. Cllr Winifred I Other Knight 1464 824 Both Noted - both. Consider further and show appropriate designation in the Allocations DPD. Stephanie Marriott Observations (Hornsea and District Chamber of Trade) 480 888 No Noted. Consider further and show appropriate designation in the Allocations DPD. Mrs J. Other Heathershaw (Hornsea Residents Association) 1474 1213 As proposed Noted - band. Consider further and show appropriate designation in the Allocations DPD. Sue Atkins Observations (Middleton on the Wolds Parish Council) 1499 1458 This question seems to be for planners rather than a Noted. Consider further and committee show appropriate designation in the Allocations DPD. Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 90 Mr David Horsley Observations (Beverley Town Council) 1502 1501 I do not understand this question. What difference Noted. Consider further and does a designation make? show appropriate designation in the Allocations DPD. J Burnett Observations (East Cottingwith Parish Council) 1482 1589 A broader band of interest is preferred where Noted - band. Consider further and possible. It is unrealistic to be too precise when the show appropriate document is protecting land for schemes up to 2021. designation in the Allocations DPD. Mr James Durham Observations (Hull City Council) 1511 1653 Band of interest Noted - band. Consider further and show appropriate designation in the Allocations DPD. Mr Peter Lacy Observations 1450 1677 Both Noted - both. Consider further and show appropriate designation in the Allocations DPD. Mrs Val Wood Observations (Anlaby with Anlaby Common Parish Council) 1513 1697 Potential Transport Scheme land in the open PPG 2 does not really apply in this Consider indicating countryside should be safeguarded in a manner situation, as it refers to formal 'Green Belt' possible railway station consistent with the advice in PPG2, whereby land - which does not apply in the East sites in the LDF and development would be restricted unless specific need Riding The comment about including where there is arose. Land scheduled for prospective railway stations station sites is worth considering in reasonable certainty adjoining existing settlement boundaries should be relevant DPDs, though precise land about the location of a included within development limits, as an indication of needs are not yet known. Similar Transport scheme, it the commitment to public transport investment, but comments have been made by others, should be identified on safeguarded to preclude other uses. questioning the reliability of Joint the Proposals Map. Structure Plan policies in terms of adequately protecting routes etc within the Open Countryside designation. Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 91 Melrose PLC Observations

110 Mr Andy Brown (MCP Planning and Development) 1516 1710 We are concerned that the broader 'band of interest' Presumably this comment can be Consider further and will hinder appropriate development where young interpreted as a preference for a narrow show appropriate people could live and work in their own towns/villages designation. designation in the thereby being able to walk or cycle to work. Allocations DPD. Mr & Mrs S Fletcher Observations 1517 1754 A band of interest would be appropriate in most Noted - band. Consider further and circumstances show appropriate designation in the Allocations DPD. Mr Joseph Observations Richardson (Jos Richardson & Son Ltd) 554 1774 No specific preference, although the proposals map Noted - both. Consider further and should directly reflect the size and nature of the show appropriate proposal, and should also reflect the flexibility of the designation in the scheme in terms of its route/ location Allocations DPD. Mr Graham Observations Titchener (Highways Agency) 1518 Mr Ashley Stratford (Halcrow Group Ltd) 498 1792 Natural England would support the 'Band of Interest' Noted - band. Consider further and for safeguarding land for transport schemes. In the show appropriate event that a transport scheme is being more designation in the thoroughly investigated we would advise that the Allocations DPD. Susan Wilson Observations entire band of interest is surveyed for nature (English Nature - conservation interest which would mean that Natural North & East England would be able to give a more informed Yorkshire Team) opinion about the impacts of the transport scheme 1521 1840 When forming a transport policy surely a detailed Presumably this comment can be Consider further and feasibility study will allow the highways section to interpreted as a preference for either, as show appropriate decide at the time on the areas required. A band of appropriate. designation in the Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 92 interest must not as in the past allow areas of land to Allocations DPD. Mr Douglas E Observations be blighted for years. Kendall (North Cave Parish Council) 1475 1854 Probably both. Noted - both. Consider further and show appropriate designation in the Allocations DPD. Jean Kitchen Observations Goole: Coniston Way - I agree about traffic. But also The underpass at Coniston Road was Discontinue the an underpass in the flood plain I understand is now intended to provide another way across safeguarding of land for untenable. This decision should be made so that the railway as an alternative to the level a future highway planning for this can move on. crossing next to the station. The proposal crossing of the railway does not figure in LTP2 and, as things line between Coniston stand, would probably be contrary to Road and Wentworth current government advice. Land has Drive, Goole. been given to the Council to enable the scheme to be implemented and part of it is in use as a children's play area, with the rest grassed for casual recreational use. This is likely to be the only crossing point that is reasonably close to the town centre that could provide an alternative to the level crossing, albeit in the form of a bridge rather than an underpass (as originally intended). However, acess to the area is through substantial areas of residential development that were not designed for through-traffic. On balance, therefore, it is considered that this scheme should no longer be protected, as it is unlikely that a railway bridge with associated highways could now be constructed without very substantial adverse impacts on the area. 252 1901 A band of interest and a narrower line should be used. Noted - both. Consider further and A narrower line alone may leave insufficient land show appropriate protected and cause uncertainty later. designation in the Allocations DPD. Mr T Ross Observations Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 93 (Hull and East Riding Rail Users Association) 1472 1916 The LAF believes a ‘band of interest’ would be most Noted - band. Consider further and appropriate to safeguard as much land as possible. If show appropriate verges or multi-use paths are to come into use, this designation in the requires a wider band of land to be safeguarded. Allocations DPD. Jennifer Aird Observations (East Riding of Yorkshire & Kingston Upon Hull Joint Local Access Forum) 484 1927 No comment Noted. Consider further and show appropriate designation in the Allocations DPD. Mrs Jean Mayland Other (Barmston & Fraisthorpe Parish Council) 1523 1954 Agree with method proposed Noted - band. Consider further and show appropriate designation in the Allocations DPD. Julie Abraham Observations 427 1968 Agree with method proposed Noted - band. Consider further and show appropriate designation in the Allocations DPD. Mrs M. Barker Observations (North Ferriby Parish Council) 1528 1997 Band of interest & preferred line Noted - both. Consider further and show appropriate designation in the Allocations DPD. Mr Ian Pitcher Observations (Melbourne Parish Council) 838 2033 It seems sensible to keep both. It gives any transport Noted - both. Consider further and Transport Development Plan Document Background R eport April 2010 94 scheme promoter flexibility and gives land owners and show appropriate developers a fuller appreciation of the ways in which designation in the they may be affected Allocations DPD. Mrs D. Beare Observations (Hook Parish Council)

Chapter 6 Heading 1482 1564 We do not consider that high car ownership levels These concerns are noted and Consider adoption of justify higher car parking allocations. Whilst understood, but the LDF is attempting to the standards indicated acknowledging the practical arguments, it does seem deal with a vast, often remote, rural area. in the Issues and to be giving in to market forces and offers little Parking standards would always accord Options booklet in the encouragement to a shift to more sustainable modes. with higher level guidance such as PPS3 LDF as these are in line Paragraphs 6.5 and 6.6 also seem quite defeatist and and RSS. To promote alternative with the practical do little for developing sustainable travel options. We sustainable modes, the standards should approach for areas are especially concerned about the higher levels of also deal with cycle parking at public such as the East Riding parking provision for residential development in the facilities such as bus and railway stations, set out in PPS3 Market Villages which are considered service hubs, medical facilities, libraries, shops, etc. "Housing". Ensure that and thus typically supported by public transport. they are clearly understandable and justified and consider the inclusion of cycle parking standards within a Supplementary Planning Document. Mr James Durham Observations (Hull City Council)

Chapter 6 Para 6.1 1482 1577 Paragraph 6.1 should state that the Government is Noted, though congestion, as an issue, is Refer to congestion also expecting us to reduce congestion. referred to in paragraph 7.7 of the reduction as a document. government target within the LDF. Mr James Durham Observations (Hull City Council)

Chapter 6 Para 6.2 480 899 Agree with aim. Support noted. Consider adoption of standards indicated in Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 95 the Issues and Options booklet at the next stage as these are in line with the practical approach for areas such as the East Riding set out in PPS3 "Housing". Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. Mrs J. Observations Heathershaw (Hornsea Residents Association)

Chapter 6 Para 6.3 482 210 Parking Standards (S6) Jill Stephenson Support with We support the need to impose parking standards, Support noted. Clarification could be At the Preferred (Network Rail) conditions however would request that the document is amended provided, but as stations are not listed, it Options stage, make it to provide clarification that these standards do not is fairly clear that the standards do not clearer that railway apply to station parking facilities. Enhanced parking apply. Preferential rates for rail station car parks are provision at railway stations can promote and passengers are welcomed, but are excluded from these encourage a greater modal shift from private car to rail entirely under the control of the rail standards and in due use. Preferential tariffs for rail users can be used to agencies who own and operate these car course prepare a further encourage modal shift in journeys that may parks. Supplementary otherwise be made entirely by car. Planning Document to set out in more detail the level of parking required for all forms of new development. 539 688 Sport England is pleased to note that the DPD will Support noted. No specific action allow for appropriate sport/recreation and tourism required. Mr Henryk Observations facilities to locate in the countryside (paragraph 5.3); Peterson that it will encourage more walking and cycling and (Sport England) use of public transport as sustainable forms of transport(6.3 & 8.6) - seeking to reverse the decline in walking and cycling and promote public health. 480 924 Agreed Support noted. Consider adoption of standards indicated in the Issues and Options Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 96 booklet at the next stage as these are in line with the practical approach for areas such as the East Riding set out in PPS3 "Housing". Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. Mrs J. Observations Heathershaw (Hornsea Residents Association) 1482 1578 In paragraph 6.3, the section of text stating ‘does not This is a fine point of clarification that Consider adoption of meet the standards’ should be changed to ‘exceeds may, or may not, be necessary depending standards indicated in the standards’ on how the sentence is read. It seems to the Issues and Options have been understood by most people. booklet as these are in line with the practical approach for areas such as the East Riding set out in PPS3 "Housing". Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. Mr James Durham Observations (Hull City Council)

Chapter 6 Para 6.4 1482 1567 The approach of having the least restrictive parking The explanation given in the Issues and Consider adoption of standards in the Haltemprice villages (paragraph 6.4) Options document is felt to be pragmatic standards indicated in for non-residential development would only seem and reasonable. It is not likely that the Issues and Options reasonable if we take a similar stance in the rest of development will be pulled away from the booklet as these are in the urban area otherwise development will be pulled City Centre as a result of using the lowest line with the practical towards the edge of the urban area. A general standard that we can from the RSS for the approach for areas tightening of the parking standards is more preferable, villages and rural areas. such as the East Riding or at least the flexibility to apply more restrictive set out in PPS3 standards within the appropriate RSS quoted range. "Housing". Ensure that There should be parking standards applicable for they are clearly development below the thresholds in table 6.1 as understandable and Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 97 otherwise these could end up with larger parking justified. Mr James Durham Observations allocations than much bigger developments, which (Hull City Council) wouldn’t make sense.

Chapter 6 Para 6.5 539 692 It is noted that a pragmatic approach is being Support noted. Consider adoption of proposed to the levels of parking supply, given the standards indicated in isolation of some rural and coastal areas and higher the Issues and Options car ownership levels within the district. Such an booklet as these are in approach will help maintain public access to line with the practical community facilities. approach for areas such as the East Riding set out in PPS3 "Housing". Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. Mr Henryk Observations Peterson (Sport England) 480 927 Agreed Support noted. Consider adoption of standards indicated in the Issues and Options booklet as these are in line with the practical approach for areas such as the East Riding set out in PPS3 "Housing". Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. Mrs J. Observations Heathershaw (Hornsea Residents Association)

Chapter 6 Para 6.6 480 928 Improvement in public transport services could help This is agreed, though the Council No specific action, but off set the problem. already does what it can to improve public continue general

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 98 transport services and infrastructure - approach set out in the including some innovative and forward- Issues and Options thinking approaches e.g. medibus and document. safeguarding land for public transport schemes. Mrs J. Observations Heathershaw (Hornsea Residents Association)

Chapter 6 Table 6.1 483 1947 It is encouraging to see Table 6.1, which highlights the Support noted. Consider adoption of proposed maximum car parking standards for non- standards indicated in residential development in the East Riding, this the Issues and Options conforms with Table 7.3 of current RSS and Table booklet in the LDF. 16.5 of the draft RSS - Maximum Parking Standards. Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. Jenny Poxon Observations (Yorkshire and Humber Assembly)

Chapter 6 Table 6.2 1414 137 There is a clear problem with the standards of parking This comment is noted and it is likely that Rather than setting car set out in Section 6. The table which indicates the the Council will indeed prepare further parking standards for parking standards for different developments is not guidance in greater detail at a future date. residential development detailed enough; each type of residential development the Core Strategy puts should have its own policy, as most other Councils do. forward a policy for use It would unsustainable [sic] to supply more parking in determining the than is required and so I urge the Council to research amount of car parking this area. An example of this can be seen from on a case by case Stockton-on Tees, which has a Draft Parking basis. Mr Alexander Observations Standards SPD with a table that indicates the parking Bateman standards in more detail. This is something this (The Planning Council should look into and I would expect to see a Bureau Ltd) Parking Standards SPD. 480 932 Agreed Support noted. Consider adoption of standards indicated in the Issues and Options booklet in the LDF.

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 99 Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. Mrs J. Observations Heathershaw (Hornsea Residents Association)

Question T6 266 21 Until people are provided with public transport Qualified support noted, which amounts to Rather than setting car alternatives adequate to their needs we have support for more public transport as well parking standards for unfortunately to agree that the Council probably has to as pragmatic parking standards. residential development adopt this approach. However the road infrastructure the Core Strategy now will not be able to sustain the resultant traffic puts forward a policy for increases much longer nor would those traffic use in determining the increases be environmentally sustainable. amount of car parking on a case by case basis. Mr Philip Taylor Observations (Minsters Rail Campaign) 569 36 I think that even higher allocations are necessary. In This is noted, but is contrary to higher Consider this view recent plans submitted in Swanland 3 car spaces are level guidance. against others received requested. A higher maximum should be written into in response to this standards. issue which, on balance support a more controlled approach as set out in Table 6.2 of the Issues and Options Document. Christine A Brown Observations 465 65 We would like to see a minimum of two car parking This is was proposed in rural areas but Rather than setting car spaces for each new dwelling the Core Strategy now puts forward a parking standards for policy for use in determining the amount residential development of car parking on a case by case basis the Core Strategy now rather than set specific standards. puts forward a policy for use in determining the amount of car parking on a case by case basis. Mrs K. Richmond Observations Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 100 (South Cave Parish Council) 248 86 Snaith should not be classified as DS3 for parking A cut-off point has to be established Rather than setting car standards. The 2001 census showed that out of a somewhere and the JSP settlement parking standards for working population of 1484 only 52 people used public hierarchy is considered reasonable. residential development transport to access their work. The current public Snaith has reasonable public transport the Core Strategy now transport does not enable people to access their work links and commuters should give this puts forward a policy for place. Most working households have a minimum of 2 issue consideration in choosing where to use in determining the vehicles. live. amount of car parking on a case by case basis. Mrs C. Hird Observations Is the Council correct in assuming that East and West East and West Cowick are not in the (Snaith and Cowick Cowick are being included with Snaith in DS3 if so Snaith 'DS3' area. Parish Council) then they should also be DS4 1022 100 Suggest the threshold for villages should be raised to This is noted, but is contrary to higher Consider this view 3 car parking spaces. Many rural households have level guidance. against others received more than 2 cars because of the poor or lack of public in response to this transport and parking on road is the biggest issue issue which, on balance most villages face in terms of complaints support a more controlled approach as set out in Table 6.2 of the Issues and Options Document. Mr Graham Lenton Observations 306 113 New developments need at least 2 parking spaces, Noted. This is what is being suggested in Rather than setting car especially in rural areas, you could maybe reduce this the Issues and Options document. parking standards for in towns, but due to lack of public transport / very residential development expensive public transport definitely more spaces in the Core Strategy now rural areas puts forward a policy for use in determining the amount of car parking on a case by case basis. Ms Nicola Salvidge Observations (Sigglesthorne CE VC Primary School) 1413 126 I am all for more parking per dwelling, we need to Noted, but somewhat confusing. It is Rather than setting car move with the times, 2 car parking spaces should be difficult to see how even more than 2 parking standards for the minimum. This would release and clear roads parking spaces per dwelling would reduce residential development congested with increased traffic volume congestion. Surely with more cars the Core Strategy now running about, roads would not be cleared puts forward a policy for Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 101 and there would be more congestion, not use in determining the less? amount of car parking on a case by case basis. Ms Nicola Salvidge Objection (Seaton PC) 426 160 Yes Support noted. Rather than setting car parking standards for residential development the Core Strategy now puts forward a policy for use in determining the amount of car parking on a case by case basis. Mrs M. Barker Support (Swanland Parish Council) 1421 213 Use of such a blunt measure of parking need is The comment re dwelling size/bedrooms Rather than setting car inadequate for rural areas and towns (DS4 and DS3) is noted, but this is not a legitimate factor parking standards for there should be an additional recognition of car in the equation and is not acknowledged residential development parking spaces needs to be based on dwelling size, ie in higher level guidance. Remoteness the Core Strategy now bedrooms. There has to be an acceptance that in rural and lack of public transport alternatives is, puts forward a policy for areas and towns there is a greater reliance on cars as however, acknowledged. The Core use in determining the core transport provision. We must ensure that the Strategy now puts forward a policy for use amount of car parking disadvantages in public transport suffered by rural in determining the amount of car parking on a case by case dwellers do not inhibit their work or quality of life on a case by case basis rather than set basis. opportunities specific standards. There will therefore be more flexibility to take a number of factors into account on a case by case basis. Cllr Symon Fraser Observations (Conservative Group) 1422 220 In general we feel that you are taking the right Support noted (with qualifying comment). Rather than setting car approach by increasing the maximum car parking for parking standards for residential development in DS4 settlements. I would residential development much rather that they are NOT increased, but see no the Core Strategy now alternative unless there is a 'remarkable' improvement puts forward a policy for in the provision of public transport to these use in determining the settlements amount of car parking on a case by case Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 102 basis. Mr Steve Knifton Support (Leconfield Parish Council) 1019 233 This seems to be the right approach Support noted. Rather than setting car parking standards for residential development the Core Strategy now puts forward a policy for use in determining the amount of car parking on a case by case basis. Miss K. E. Laister Support (Ferriby Conservation Society) 845 247 The approach needs to take account of the greater Noted. This is the reason that a higher Rather than setting car reliance on cars as core transport in Rural Areas level of parking was suggested. parking standards for residential development the Core Strategy now puts forward a policy for use in determining the amount of car parking on a case by case basis. Mrs D. E. Franks Observations (Paull Parish Council) 527 261 Yes - we agree Support noted. Rather than setting car parking standards for residential development the Core Strategy now puts forward a policy for use in determining the amount of car parking on a case by case basis. Mrs Sally Howlat Support (Seaton Ross Parish Council) Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 103 350 275 Yes Support noted. Rather than setting car parking standards for residential development the Core Strategy now puts forward a policy for use in determining the amount of car parking on a case by case basis. Mrs K. Soltys Support (Mappleton Parish Council) 843 291 Higher thresholds should be applied to all rural areas The comment regarding rural areas is Rather than setting car noted, but the higher standard previously parking standards for proposed already acknowledges this residential development greater need and is generally in line with the Core Strategy now higher level guidance and intent. puts forward a policy for use in determining the amount of car parking on a case by case basis. Mrs K. Roe Observations (Langtoft Parish Council) 608 306 Yes Support noted. Rather than setting car parking standards for residential development the Core Strategy now puts forward a policy for use in determining the amount of car parking on a case by case basis. Mrs Rosalind Support Turner (Beeford Parish Council) 329 327 There should be some relationship between car In general terms, that is what Tables 6.1 Rather than setting car parking and the availability of public transport or and 6.2 tried to do in the Issues and parking standards for community transport. A scale that reflects one to the Options document. The Council may residential development other is essential to minimise street parking in towns develop parking standards further by the Core Strategy now Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 104 yet reflect the transport limits in villages means of a Supplementary Planning puts forward a policy for Document. use in determining the amount of car parking on a case by case basis. Mr R. L. Mole Observations (Foston Parish Council) 1426 351 No - Draft PPS3, which will supersede PPG3, does This is noted. Whilst the final PPS3 Rather than setting car not offer maximum car parking levels. Instead, carries forward what the draft had to say, parking standards for paragraph 20 states that 'Local Planning Authorities the rest of the PPS (as with every PPS) is residential development should develop parking policies for their plan area with full of references to sustainability, climate the Core Strategy now local stakeholders and local communities having change, public transport, etc, etc. It puts forward a policy for regard to expected car ownership for planned housing certainly does not give 'carte blanche' to use in determining the in different locations, the efficient use of land and the high levels of residential parking. Car amount of car parking importance of promoting good design'. We therefore parking in residential developments will on a case by case disagree that maximum car parking thresholds should now be determined by a policy approach basis. be adopted to be set in the Core Strategy so that residential parking can be considered on a case by case basis. George Wimpey Object PLC

1425 Ms Liz Beighton (Spawforths) 1426 352 No specific comments Noted. No specific action required. George Wimpey Other PLC 1425 Ms Liz Beighton (Spawforths) 1431 365 No - Draft PPS3, which will supersede PPG3, does This is noted. Whilst the final PPS3 Rather than setting car not offer maximum car parking levels. Instead, carries forward what the draft had to say, parking standards for paragraph 20 states that 'Local Planning Authorities the rest of the PPS (as with every PPS) is residential development should develop parking policies for their plan area with full of references to sustainability, climate the Core Strategy now local stakeholders and local communities having change, public transport, etc, etc. It puts forward a policy for regard to expected car ownership for planned housing certainly does not give 'carte blanche' to use in determining the in different locations, the efficient use of land and the high levels of residential parking. Car amount of car parking importance of promoting good design'. We therefore parking in residential developments will on a case by case Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 105 disagree that maximum car parking thresholds should now be determined by a policy approach basis. be adopted to be set in the Core Strategy so that residential parking can be considered on a case by case basis. Miller Strategic Object Land

1425 Ms Liz Beighton (Spawforths) 1430 379 No - Draft PPS3, which will supersede PPG3, does This is noted. Whilst the final PPS3 Rather than setting car not offer maximum car parking levels. Instead, carries forward what the draft had to say, parking standards for paragraph 20 states that 'Local Planning Authorities the rest of the PPS (as with every PPS) is residential development should develop parking policies for their plan area with full of references to sustainability, climate the Core Strategy now local stakeholders and local communities having change, public transport, etc, etc. It puts forward a policy for regard to expected car ownership for planned housing certainly does not give 'carte blanche' to use in determining the in different locations, the efficient use of land and the high levels of residential parking. Car amount of car parking importance of promoting good design'. We therefore parking in residential developments will on a case by case disagree that maximum car parking thresholds should now be determined by a policy approach basis. be adopted to be set in the Core Strategy so that residential parking can be considered on a case by case basis. Mr Cowton Object

1425 Ms Liz Beighton (Spawforths) 1429 390 Agree on approach Support noted. Rather than setting car parking standards for residential development the Core Strategy now puts forward a policy for use in determining the amount of car parking on a case by case basis. Mr John Winter Support 1432 404 We support the approach to increase the maximum This support is noted, together with the Rather than setting car parking threshold for the smaller settlements. This comments about rural sustainability and parking standards for recognises the fact that due to particular local transport. residential development circumstances many residents of rural areas are the Core Strategy now Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 106 reliant upon private transport to undertake daily trips puts forward a policy for to work, school and local shops. We consider that this use in determining the approach will enable rural communities to remain amount of car parking sustainable in the future and assist in retaining the on a case by case economic vitality of the rural economy. It will also basis. Ms Kathryn Jukes Support provide breathing space in order for the Council to (Carter Jonas LLP) address how the rural public transport network might be developed into a comprehensive service to service a larger proportion of the rural population. 1433 412 In relation to the proposed parking standards, we Consideration was given to this before Rather than setting car would suggest that due consideration should be given suggesting a slightly higher parking level parking standards for to the impact the proposed thresholds may have in for rural areas. The standard put forward residential development terms of encouraging greater levels of car use. was felt to be a reasonable balance in line the Core Strategy now with Regional Planning Guidance. puts forward a policy for use in determining the amount of car parking on a case by case basis. Mr John Pilgrim Observations (Yorkshire Forward) 863 422 Definitely – rural villages with little or no public The comment re bedrooms is noted, but Rather than setting car transport will have a MINIMUM of 2 vehicles per this is not a legitimate factor in the parking standards for household. In some cases more as older children will equation and is not acknowledged in residential development probably have their own vehicles. Car park spaces higher level guidance. Remoteness and the Core Strategy now need to reflect the amount of bedrooms per house. lack of public transport alternatives is, puts forward a policy for however, acknowledged and the higher use in determining the standard already reflected this greater amount of car parking need, which is generally in line with PPS3 on a case by case and RSS guidelines. basis. Ms Samantha Support Dunwell (Fridaythorpe Parish Council) 1435 437 Yes Noted. Rather than setting car parking standards for residential development the Core Strategy now puts forward a policy for use in determining the amount of car parking on a case by case Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 107 basis. Mrs H Hook Support 1437 451 No comment Noted. No specific action required. Unknown Other (Albanwise Ltd) 1436 Mr Michael O'Connell (Entec UK Ltd) 1153 485 Yes this is the right approach Support noted. Rather than setting car parking standards for residential development the Core Strategy now puts forward a policy for use in determining the amount of car parking on a case by case basis. Mr Richard Bryan Support 1442 501 We feel that dwelling size and location should be The comment re dwelling size is noted, Rather than setting car taken into account as well. Each should be looked at but this is not a legitimate factor in the parking standards for separately equation and is not acknowledged in residential development higher level guidance. Remoteness and the Core Strategy now lack of public transport alternatives is, puts forward a policy for however, acknowledged and the higher use in determining the standard proposed in the issues and amount of car parking options reflected this greater need, which on a case by case is generally in line with PPS3 and RSS basis. guidelines. The Core Strategy now puts forward a policy for use in determining the amount of car parking on a case by case basis, Allowing a number of factors to be taken into account. W Buckle Observations (Wetwang Parish Council) 1443 523 Yes Noted. Rather than setting car parking standards for residential development the Core Strategy now Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 108 puts forward a policy for use in determining the amount of car parking on a case by case basis. Ms Sarah Watson Support (Sigglesthorne Parish Council) 833 707 Yes Noted. Rather than setting car parking standards for residential development the Core Strategy now puts forward a policy for use in determining the amount of car parking on a case by case basis. Ms H. Harvatt Support (Hollym Parish Council) 1452 747 PPG 3 parking threshold of 1.5 in DS1 settlements is Table 6.2 of the Issues and Options Rather than setting car being squeezed to 1 or less. This results in more Document keeps the level at 1.5 spaces, parking standards for dwellings to the acre and even more cars with not 1. The DS4 standard is to reflect the residential development nowhere to park. DS4 areas and below are less possible lack of Public Transport in such the Core Strategy now congested so why give them 2 car spaces? settlements compared to other less puts forward a policy for remote ones. use in determining the amount of car parking on a case by case basis. Cllr Winifred I Observations Knight 1464 827 Given the poor public transport provision even in A cut-off point has to be established Rather than setting car some DS3 settlements higher provision should be somewhere and the JSP Core Strategy's parking standards for made whenever possible. settlement hierarchy is considered residential development reasonable. Hornsea has good public the Core Strategy now transport links and commuters should puts forward a policy for give this issue consideration in choosing use in determining the where to live. amount of car parking on a case by case basis. Stephanie Marriott Observations Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 109 (Hornsea and District Chamber of Trade) 480 890 Yes Noted. Rather than setting car Mrs J. Support parking standards for Heathershaw residential development (Hornsea Residents the Core Strategy now Association) puts forward a policy for use in determining the amount of car parking on a case by case basis. 480 933 Yes - until public transport proves of greater help. Qualified support noted. Rather than setting car Mrs J. Support Relationship between public transport need and parking standards for Heathershaw private transport needs careful consideration. residential development (Hornsea Residents the Core Strategy now Association) puts forward a policy for use in determining the amount of car parking on a case by case basis. 1474 1215 Yes, but not adequate regarding transport to and from Qualified support noted. Rather than setting car market towns. parking standards for residential development the Core Strategy now puts forward a policy for use in determining the amount of car parking on a case by case basis. Sue Atkins Support with conditions (Middleton on the Wolds Parish Council) 1499 1460 This seems to us to be a sensible attitude for smaller Support noted. Rather than setting car settlements where there is often no alternative means parking standards for of getting to work, schools and most if not all shops. residential development the Core Strategy now puts forward a policy for use in determining the Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 110 amount of car parking on a case by case basis. Mr David Horsley Support (Beverley Town Council) 1502 1502 This is entirely sensible Support noted Rather than setting car parking standards for residential development the Core Strategy now puts forward a policy for use in determining the amount of car parking on a case by case basis. J Burnett Support (East Cottingwith Parish Council) 1482 1591 The standard seems reasonable but the reasoning is Qualified support noted. Rather than setting car suspect (being for a lack of public transport). parking standards for residential development the Core Strategy now puts forward a policy for use in determining the amount of car parking on a case by case basis. Mr James Durham Observations (Hull City Council) 694 1612 The ministerial statement on Planning for Housing (17 These comments are useful and noted. In light of adopted July 2003) made clear that the PPG3 standard of 1.5 The sheer size and rurality of the East PPS3 replacing PPG3, off-street parking spaces per dwelling was intended as Riding has led the Council to take this which contained the 1.5 an average across an authority’s area. It also approach. The wording of the standard in spaces per dwelling suggested that there could be flexibility on car Table 6.2 perhaps needs revision to average standard, parking, eg higher levels of parking in rural areas may ensure that, overall, parking levels do not rather than setting car be appropriate. Nevertheless, your proposed arise. Domestic parking provision across parking standards for standards (as currently set out in table 6.2) would the East Riding averages 2 spaces per residential development need to be fully justified, particularly if the proposed dwelling for detached and semi-detached the Core Strategy now higher standards for market villages and rural areas houses, with 1.5 spaces per dwelling for puts forward a policy for would result in an average across your authority’s town and group dwellings, ie. it is already use in determining the area higher than the PPG3 standard. in line with the pragmatic policy set out in amount of car parking Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 111 the Issues and Options document. on a case by case basis. Mr A McIntyre Observations (Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber) 1511 1654 I do not think parking should be restricted in village The comment regarding the number of Rather than setting car settlements, most houses in these areas have two or household cars and visitors' cars is noted, parking standards for more cars, when they have visitors they and the extra but this is not a legitimate factor in the residential development cars have to be parked on the roadside. Most villages equation and is not acknowledged in the Core Strategy now have narrow roads and roadside parking is not safe higher level guidance. Remoteness and puts forward a policy for for road users and pedestrians. Also villages in the lack of public transport alternatives is, use in determining the East Riding of Yorkshire are predominately farming however, acknowledged and the higher amount of car parking areas and therefore have large agricultural equipment standard already reflects this greater on a case by case which requires the full road width. need, which is generally in line with PPS3 basis. and RSS guidelines. Mr Peter Lacy Observations The size of the houses in the area should be taken into account, if they are 4/5 bedroom houses there could be more residents and therefore I suggest more cars. 1450 1678 DS 1 Haltemprice villages should have a 2 car A cut-off point had to be established In light of adopted allocation also. somewhere and the JSP Core Strategy's PPS3 replacing PPG3, settlement hierarchy is considered which contained the 1.5 appropriate. Anlaby has very good public spaces per dwelling transport links and commuters should average standard, give this issue consideration in choosing rather than setting car where to live. parking standards for residential development the Core Strategy now puts forward a policy for use in determining the amount of car parking on a case by case basis. Mrs Val Wood Observations (Anlaby with Anlaby Common Parish Council) 1513 1702 PPG13 (para.51) states that developers should not be Noted. It is unlikely that the Council In light of adopted required to provide more parking than they would object if developers wished to PPS3 replacing PPG3, Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 112 themselves wish. In addition, PPG3 (paras.57 and 58) minimise the level of car parking in which contained the 1.5 requires that efficient use is made of land, which could developments. spaces per dwelling potentially be compromised by the imposition of rigid average standard, parking standards. On this basis the Council should rather than setting car be flexible in the application of parking standards in parking standards for Development Strategy Setlements and DS residential development settlements the Core Strategy now puts forward a policy for use in determining the amount of car parking on a case by case basis. Melrose PLC Observations

110 Mr Andy Brown (MCP Planning and Development) 1516 1711 We agree with the maximum parking threshold where The proposed standards attempted to do In light of adopted there is sufficient / efficient public transport. However this. PPS3 replacing PPG3, in some instances where this is not the case, eg DS3, which contained the 1.5 flexibility of thinking needs to come into play. spaces per dwelling average standard, rather than setting car parking standards for residential development the Core Strategy now puts forward a policy for use in determining the amount of car parking on a case by case basis. Mr & Mrs S Fletcher Support with conditions 1517 1756 No comment Noted. No specific action required. Mr Joseph Other Richardson (Jos Richardson & Son Ltd) 554 1775 The Agency would have concerns if the maximum Noted. Now that PPG3 has been In light of adopted Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 113 parking thresholds (as indicated in PPG3) were superseded by PPS3, the Council is PPS3 replacing PPG3, exceeded, irrespective of any local connectivity attempting to reflect that advice bearing in which contained the 1.5 issues. The Agency recognises that such remote mind, especially, its emphasis on spaces per dwelling areas (DS4 and below settlements) have connectivity sustainability. average standard, issues and have fewer available alternatives to travel rather than setting car by private car. However, given the link between car parking standards for parking spaces and levels of trip generation, the residential development Agency considers that the thresholds should not be the Core Strategy now exceeded and further emphasis should be place upon puts forward a policy for increasing the availability of alternative modes of use in determining the travel. amount of car parking on a case by case basis. Mr Graham Observations Titchener (Highways Agency)

1518 Mr Ashley Stratford (Halcrow Group Ltd) 1489 1805 Section 6 - support 2 parking spaces per dwelling Support noted. In light of adopted Current Gov. guidelines of 1.5 are not adequate for a PPS3 replacing PPG3, rural location like HOSM which contained the 1.5 spaces per dwelling average standard, rather than setting car parking standards for residential development the Core Strategy now puts forward a policy for use in determining the amount of car parking on a case by case basis. NC Evans Support (Holme on Spalding Moor Parish Plan Advisory Committee) 1520 1808 In Rural Areas Market Towns a minimum of 2 parking This view is noted, but even in the rural In light of adopted Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 114 spaces off road should be provided and maintained if ares, the market towns have reasonable PPS3 replacing PPG3, further development is requested. Many small sites do public transport services and to take this which contained the 1.5 not provide footpaths. Parking on roads is not totally approach would be contrary to higher spaces per dwelling safe level advice as well as the general average standard, approach of the JSP Core Strategy and rather than setting car RSS. parking standards for residential development the Core Strategy now puts forward a policy for use in determining the amount of car parking on a case by case basis. Mr John Ledger Objection No. Leaf Sail Farm, Hedon is a typical example of parking difficulties 1514 1817 This Council expresses its Cyrene that this raising of whole approach of the JSP which acts as PPS3 replacing PPG3, parking requirements is not extended to Market the Core Strategy for the time being, the which contained the 1.5 Towns. Hedon in common with other market towns is Transport DPD and higher level advice. spaces per dwelling experiencing an unprecedented increase in on-street Better public transport alternatives are average standard, parking and illegal parking where restrictions should available in market towns and could be rather than setting car apply. This results in dangerous congestion and used to replace some car journeys. parking standards for occasions difficulty for traffic especially delivery Hedon is a town that is well served by residential development vehicles. We therefore suggest that the increase to 2 public transport. the Core Strategy now spaces per dwelling be applied in the LDF to Market puts forward a policy for Towns as well as villages. use in determining the amount of car parking on a case by case basis. Hedon Town Observations Council (Hedon Town Council) 970 1825 We are concerned by the potential implications of this Although this is noted, it is not likely that In light of adopted approach for some of the settlements identified within the LDF will allocate large scale housing PPS3 replacing PPG3, the Smaller Settlements DPD preferred options – development to the market villages. Any which contained the 1.5 namely those adjacent to internationally or nationally increase in parking standards would be spaces per dwelling designated wildlife sites. If these settlements were to likely to lead to only minimal additional average standard, become Market Villages, the additional parking land being required. Impacts on wildlife rather than setting car requirement associated with new developments could sites would always be considered before parking standards for potentially lead to an increased land-take and any allocations were to be made, or, residential development

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 115 therefore additional pressure on the interest features where sites are already allocated, at the the Core Strategy now of these sites, particularly in combination with other planning application stage. puts forward a policy for Market Village developments. use in determining the amount of car parking on a case by case basis. Mr Martin Kerby Observations (RSPB Northern England Region) 1495 1835 In response specifically to the Transport Development This qualified support is noted. The In light of adopted Plan Document, we would like to concur with your associated problems mentioned are some PPS3 replacing PPG3, conclusion that rural small settlement dwellers have a of the reasons why parking restraint is which contained the 1.5 higher dependence on their cars than those in urban required I.e. to conserve village spaces per dwelling areas. This is recognised in Question 6, with which we environments, as well as to take account average standard, broadly agree. The specific number of car parking of more global issues such as climate rather than setting car spaces against any single development, however, change. parking standards for should be pragmatic, and take into account not only residential development the development scope and be appropriate but also the Core Strategy now the specific location. Any measure that predictably puts forward a policy for increases street parking in the village has the use in determining the probability of exacerbating problems of both access amount of car parking along narrow roads and the likelihood of irreversible on a case by case damage to verges and the character of the settlement basis. Mr Mike Crowther Support with itself. conditions (Atwick Parish Council) 1521 1841 Parking in rural areas should reflect a higher car If parking was to be increased across the In light of adopted owning population. A level of 2 parking places per board as suggested, public transport PPS3 replacing PPG3, household should be allowed across the board, until would probably wither rather than which contained the 1.5 adequate alternative forms of transport are available. stabilise or grow. spaces per dwelling average standard, rather than setting car parking standards for residential development the Core Strategy now puts forward a policy for use in determining the amount of car parking on a case by case basis. Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 116 Mr Douglas E Support with Kendall conditions (North Cave Parish Council) 1475 1855 It should be 2 car everywhere. Providing less puts This is noted but would be contrary to the In light of adopted more cars on narrow roads on new development sites whole approach of the the JSP which acts PPS3 replacing PPG3, especially with the small garages provided these as the Core Strategy for the time being, which contained the 1.5 days. and higher level advice. Better public spaces per dwelling transport alternatives are available in average standard, market towns and could be used to rather than setting car replace some car journeys. parking standards for residential development the Core Strategy now puts forward a policy for use in determining the amount of car parking on a case by case basis. Jean Kitchen Support with conditions 252 1902 No comment. Noted. No specific action required. Mr T Ross Other (Hull and East Riding Rail Users Association) 484 1928 Yes Noted. In light of adopted PPS3 replacing PPG3, which contained the 1.5 spaces per dwelling average standard, rather than setting car parking standards for residential development the Core Strategy now puts forward a policy for use in determining the amount of car parking on a case by case basis. Mrs Jean Mayland Support Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 117 (Barmston & Fraisthorpe Parish Council) 313 1940 Until a vastly improved public transport system is The comment re dwelling size/bedrooms In light of adopted provided, people living in or visiting rural areas must is noted, but this is not a legitimate factor PPS3 replacing PPG3, rely on private transport. Car ownership levels in in the equation and is not acknowledged which contained the 1.5 these areas are high and are likely to increase. For in higher level guidance. Remoteness spaces per dwelling the reasons stated in the TDP, it is important for and lack of public transport alternatives is, average standard, adequate provision to be made for off-street parking. however, acknowledged and the higher rather than setting car Consequently the proposal to increase the limit from standard already reflected this greater parking standards for one and a half to two car parking spaces per dwelling need, which is generally in line with higher residential development is approved. However, it is worrying that this is level guidance and intent. the Core Strategy now proposed as a maximum when the previous limit was puts forward a policy for a minimum. This seems to imply that plans could in use in determining the future be approved with less than the previous amount of car parking minimum number of parking spaces and that would be on a case by case a backward step. It is also strange that there seems to basis. Mrs S. Mason Support with be no distinction between a five or six bedroom house conditions (where there are likely to be more than two vehicles) (Eastrington Parish and a one bedroom flat. Council) 1523 1955 Yes Noted. In light of adopted PPS3 replacing PPG3, which contained the 1.5 spaces per dwelling average standard, rather than setting car parking standards for residential development the Core Strategy now puts forward a policy for use in determining the amount of car parking on a case by case basis. Julie Abraham Support 427 1969 Agree Support noted. In light of adopted PPS3 replacing PPG3, which contained the 1.5 spaces per dwelling average standard, Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 118 rather than setting car parking standards for residential development the Core Strategy now puts forward a policy for use in determining the amount of car parking on a case by case basis. Mrs M. Barker Support (North Ferriby Parish Council) 1525 1980 This council strongly feels that in relation to allocation This is noted but would be contrary to the In light of adopted of parking spaces there should be provision, when whole approach of the JSP which acts as PPS3 replacing PPG3, there is a need that can be justified, for two parking the adopted Core Strategy for the time which contained the 1.5 spaces allocated for each new dwelling. This is being, and higher level advice. Better spaces per dwelling particularly important in central town areas where public transport alternatives are available average standard, parking is at a premium. in market towns and could be used to rather than setting car replace some car journeys. Pocklington parking standards for is a town that is well served by public residential development transport. the Core Strategy now puts forward a policy for use in determining the amount of car parking on a case by case basis. Mr Richard Wood Support with conditions (Pocklington Town Council) 1528 1998 If public transport remains the same then increasing This is noted and parking levels are In light of adopted threshold okay. If public transport improved then need intended to be applied flexibly case by PPS3 replacing PPG3, for extra parking should decrease. case. Parking requirements are likely to which contained the 1.5 be set out more clearly in a spaces per dwelling Supplementary Planning Document in average standard, due course. rather than setting car parking standards for residential development the Core Strategy now puts forward a policy for use in determining the Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 119 amount of car parking on a case by case basis. Mr Ian Pitcher Observations (Melbourne Parish Council) 838 2034 One has to ask is this provision sufficient? In rural The level suggested was the most that we In light of adopted areas where the car is relied upon for necessary could reasonably suggest, given higher PPS3 replacing PPG3, transport, especially where public transport is minimal level advice. It was put forward as we which contained the 1.5 were aware of the situation in the rural spaces per dwelling areas of the East Riding average standard, rather than setting car parking standards for residential development the Core Strategy now puts forward a policy for use in determining the amount of car parking on a case by case basis. Mrs D. Beare Observations (Hook Parish Council)

Question T7 266 22 Until people are provided with public transport Support noted. Consider adoption of alternatives adequate to their needs we have standards indicated in unfortunately to agree that the Council probably has to the Issues and Options adopt this approach. However the road infrastructure booklet in the LDF as will not be able to sustain the resultant traffic these are in line with increases much longer nor would those traffic the practical approach increases be environmentally sustainable. for rural areas such as the East Riding. Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. Mr Philip Taylor Support (Minsters Rail Campaign) 569 37 Yes Support noted. Consider adoption of standards indicated in Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 120 the Issues and Options booklet in the LDF as these are in line with the practical approach for rural areas such as the East Riding. Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. Christine A Brown Support 465 66 Yes Support noted. Consider adoption of standards indicated in the Issues and Options booklet in the LDF as these are in line with the practical approach for rural areas such as the East Riding. Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. Mrs K. Richmond Support (South Cave Parish Council) 248 87 Yes but some of your bandings need to be revised to Support noted. The suggested bands Consider adoption of reflect rural isolation already tried to reflect this and were in standards indicated in line with RSS. the Issues and Options booklet in the LDF as these are in line with the practical approach for rural areas such as the East Riding. Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. Mrs C. Hird Support with conditions (Snaith and Cowick Parish Council) 1022 101 Suggest the threshold for villages should be raised to Noted. If parking was to be increased Consider adoption of 3 car parking spaces. Many rural households have across the board as suggested, public standards indicated in Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 121 more than 2 cars because of the poor or lack of public transport would probably wither rather the Issues and Options transport and parking on road is the biggest issue than stabilise or grow. booklet in the LDF as most villages face in terms of complaints these are in line with the practical approach for rural areas such as the East Riding. Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. Mr Graham Lenton Observations 306 114 Yes Support noted. Consider adoption of standards indicated in the Issues and Options booklet in the LDF as these are in line with the practical approach for rural areas such as the East Riding. Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. Ms Nicola Salvidge Support (Sigglesthorne CE VC Primary School) 1413 127 Yes Support noted. Consider adoption of standards indicated in the Issues and Options booklet in the LDF as these are in line with the practical approach for rural areas such as the East Riding. Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. Ms Nicola Salvidge Support (Seaton PC) 426 161 Yes Support noted. Consider adoption of standards indicated in the Issues and Options booklet in the LDF as Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 122 these are in line with the practical approach for rural areas such as the East Riding. Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. Mrs M. Barker Support (Swanland Parish Council) 1422 221 As T6. In general we feel that you are taking the right Support noted. Consider adoption of approach by increasing the maximum car parking for standards indicated in residential development in DS4 settlements. I would the Issues and Options much rather that they are NOT increased, but see no booklet in the LDF as alternative unless there is a 'remarkable' improvement these are in line with in the provision of public transport to these the practical approach settlements. for rural areas such as the East Riding. Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. Mr Steve Knifton Support (Leconfield Parish The right decision unless there is a' remarkable ' Council) improvement in the provision of public transport in this area. 1019 234 Yes Support noted. Consider adoption of standards indicated in the Issues and Options booklet in the LDF as these are in line with the practical approach for rural areas such as the East Riding. Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. Miss K. E. Laister Support (Ferriby Conservation Society) 845 248 Yes Support noted. Consider adoption of Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 123 standards indicated in the Issues and Options booklet in the LDF as these are in line with the practical approach for rural areas such as the East Riding. Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. Mrs D. E. Franks Support (Paull Parish Council) 527 262 Yes Support noted. Consider adoption of standards indicated in the Issues and Options booklet in the LDF as these are in line with the practical approach for rural areas such as the East Riding. Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. Mrs Sally Howlat Support (Seaton Ross Parish Council) 350 276 Yes Support noted. Consider adoption of standards indicated in the Issues and Options booklet in the LDF as these are in line with the practical approach for rural areas such as the East Riding. Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. Mrs K. Soltys Support (Mappleton Parish Council) Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 124 432 290 If DS3 areas are to be the focus for development to The comment is more concerned with the Refer the matter of support and complement DS1 and DS2 areas then provision of public car parks in the DS3 public car parking to the there must be adequate parking. DS3 towns will be towns rather than residential provision relevant officers of the supporting the day to day needs of DS4 villages and and is a slightly different issue. It is also Council for adequate parking is essential. governed by higher level guidance and is consideration through not likely to be increased on a large scale. the LTP process. Charging in public car parks would also Consider adoption of be an issue to consider. standards indicated in the Issues and Options booklet in the LDF as these are in line with the practical approach for rural areas such as the East Riding. Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. Mrs Lorraine Vant Observations (Howden Civic Society) 843 292 Sufficient parking facilities must be provided by This may not be easy for existing Consider adoption of businesses particularly in rural villages where lack of businesses, which may have to continue standards indicated in parking may already exist to rely on existing provision that may only the Issues and Options be on-street. The council cannot make booklet in the LDF as existing businesses provide new off-street these are in line with car parking unless, for example, a the practical approach planning application was to be made to for rural areas such as expand an existing business, in which the East Riding. case the applicant would be covered by Ensure that they are the standards set out in this DPD. It is clearly understandable most unlikely that the Council will provide and justified. new car parks. Mrs K. Roe Observations (Langtoft Parish Council) 608 307 Yes Noted. Consider adoption of standards indicated in the Issues and Options booklet in the LDF as these are in line with the practical approach Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 125 for rural areas such as the East Riding. Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. Mrs Rosalind Support Turner (Beeford Parish Council) 329 328 There should be some relationship between car Noted, but the proposed levels of parking Consider adoption of parking and the availability of public transport or provision already attempt this. standards indicated in community transport. A scale that reflects one to the the Issues and Options other is essential to minimise street parking in towns booklet in the LDF as yet reflect the transport limits in villages these are in line with the practical approach for rural areas such as the East Riding. Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. Mr R. L. Mole Observations (Foston Parish Council) 1431 366 No specific comments Noted. No specific action required. Miller Strategic Other Land 1425 Ms Liz Beighton (Spawforths) 1430 380 No specific comments Noted. No specific action required. Mr Cowton Other 1425 Ms Liz Beighton (Spawforths) 1429 391 Agree with standards but this needs to be reflected in Noted. Design issues will be picked up in Consider adoption of building design the Core Strategy and its associated standards indicated in Supplementary Planning Documents. the Issues and Options booklet in the LDF as these are in line with Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 126 the practical approach for rural areas such as the East Riding. Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. Mr John Winter Support with conditions 1432 405 We support this approach which recognises the fact Support noted. Consider adoption of that much of the East Riding is rural and people rely standards indicated in heavily on private transport to travel to work, to go the Issues and Options shopping and to undertake other cultural and leisure booklet in the LDF as related activities. these are in line with the practical approach for rural areas such as the East Riding. Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. Ms Kathryn Jukes Support (Carter Jonas LLP) 863 423 Yes! How else will people travel to non-residential Support noted. Most service centres Consider adoption of developments if there is no/little public transport and already have reasonable levels of public standards indicated in where are they supposed to park once they get there car parking and can be reached by public the Issues and Options if there is limited car parking facilities. transport too. booklet in the LDF as these are in line with the practical approach for rural areas such as the East Riding. Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. Ms Samantha Support Dunwell (Fridaythorpe Parish Council) 1435 438 Yes Noted. Consider adoption of standards indicated in the Issues and Options booklet in the LDF as these are in line with Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 127 the practical approach for rural areas such as the East Riding. Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. Mrs H Hook Support 1437 452 No comment Noted. No specific action required. Unknown Other (Albanwise Ltd) 1436 Mr Michael O'Connell (Entec UK Ltd) 1153 486 Yes Noted. Consider adoption of standards indicated in the Issues and Options booklet in the LDF as these are in line with the practical approach for rural areas such as the East Riding. Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. Mr Richard Bryan Support 1442 502 Yes Noted. Consider adoption of standards indicated in the Issues and Options booklet in the LDF as these are in line with the practical approach for rural areas such as the East Riding. Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. W Buckle Support (Wetwang Parish Council) Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 128 1443 524 Yes Noted. Consider adoption of standards indicated in the Issues and Options booklet in the LDF as these are in line with the practical approach for rural areas such as the East Riding. Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. Ms Sarah Watson Support (Sigglesthorne Parish Council) 1421 697 Use of such a blunt measure of parking need is The comment re dwelling size/bedrooms In light of adopted inadequate for rural areas and towns (DS4 and DS3) is noted, but this is not a legitimate factor PPS3 replacing PPG3, there should be an additional recognition of car in the equation and is not acknowledged which contained the 1.5 parking spaces needs to be based on dwelling size, ie in higher level guidance. Remoteness spaces per dwelling bedrooms. There has to be an acceptance that in rural and lack of public transport alternatives is, average standard, areas and towns there is a greater reliance on cars as however, acknowledged and the higher rather than setting car core transport provision. We must ensure that the standard already reflects this greater parking standards for disadvantages in public transport suffered by rural need, which is generally in line with higher residential development dwellers do not inhibit their work of quality life level guidance and intent. the Core Strategy now opportunities puts forward a policy for use in determining the amount of car parking on a case by case basis. Cllr Symon Fraser Observations (Conservative Group) 1433 698 In relation to the proposed parking standards, we We are aware of this fine balance and the Consider adoption of would suggest that due consideration should be given suggested standards attempt to meet a standards indicated in to the impact the proposed thresholds may have in reasonable compromise in such a large the Issues and Options terms of encouraging greater levels of car use. rural area. booklet in the LDF as these are in line with the practical approach for rural areas such as the East Riding. Ensure that they are clearly understandable Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 129 and justified. Mr John Pilgrim Observations (Yorkshire Forward) 833 709 Yes Noted. Consider adoption of standards indicated in the Issues and Options booklet in the LDF as these are in line with the practical approach for rural areas such as the East Riding. Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. Ms H. Harvatt Support (Hollym Parish Council) 1452 751 The present non residential developments I have Noted. Consider adoption of experience of in the Yorkshire and Humber region standards indicated in have sufficient inbuilt parking. the Issues and Options booklet in the LDF as these are in line with the practical approach for rural areas such as the East Riding. Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. Cllr Winifred I Observations Knight 1464 828 Yes Noted. Consider adoption of standards indicated in the Issues and Options booklet in the LDF as these are in line with the practical approach for rural areas such as the East Riding. Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 130 Stephanie Marriott Support (Hornsea and District Chamber of Trade) 480 934 Yes Noted. Consider adoption of standards indicated in the Issues and Options booklet in the LDF as these are in line with the practical approach for rural areas such as the East Riding. Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. Mrs J. Support Heathershaw (Hornsea Residents Association) 1474 1216 Yes Noted. Consider adoption of standards indicated in the Issues and Options booklet in the LDF as these are in line with the practical approach for rural areas such as the East Riding. Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. Sue Atkins Support (Middleton on the Wolds Parish Council) 1499 1462 This seems to us to be a sensible attitude since a Noted. Consider adoption of significant proportion of our population have little or no standards indicated in choice about using the car for shopping, medical visits the Issues and Options etc. booklet in the LDF as these are in line with the practical approach for rural areas such as Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 131 the East Riding. Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. Mr David Horsley Support (Beverley Town Council) 1502 1503 Yes Noted. Consider adoption of standards indicated in the Issues and Options booklet in the LDF as these are in line with the practical approach for rural areas such as the East Riding. Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. J Burnett Support (East Cottingwith Parish Council) 1482 1592 We would prefer a more flexible approach in the The standard was already flexible and is Consider adoption of Haltemprice villages which allows for the application likely to be developed further through standards indicated in of more restrictive standards in line with a coordinated SPD. The reasoning for it, explained in the Issues and Options approach for the whole of the Hull Urban Area. the Issues and Options Document is felt booklet in the LDF as to be pragmatic and reasonable and is these are in line with based on RSS and PPS3. the practical approach for rural areas such as the East Riding. Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. Mr James Durham Observations (Hull City Council) 1511 1655 I do not think parking should be restricted in village The comment regarding the number of In light of adopted settlements, most houses in these areas have two or household cars and visitors' cars is noted, PPS3 replacing PPG3, more cars, when they have visitors they and the extra but this is not a legitimate factor in the which contained the 1.5 cars have to be parked on the roadside. Most villages equation and is not acknowledged in spaces per dwelling have narrow roads and roadside parking is not safe higher level guidance. Remoteness and average standard, for road users and pedestrians, also villages in the lack of public transport alternatives is, rather than setting car East Riding of Yorkshire are predominately farming however, acknowledged and the higher parking standards for Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 132 areas and therefore have large agricultural equipment standard already reflected this greater residential development which requires the full road width. need, which was generally in line with the Core Strategy now PPS3 and RSS guidelines. The draft Core puts forward a policy for Strategy now puts forward a policy for use in determining the consideration of residential parking levels amount of car parking rather than prescribe the number of on a case by case spaces to allow. basis. Mr Peter Lacy Observations The size of the houses in the area should be taken into account, if they are 4/5 bedroom houses there could be more residents and therefore I suggest more cars. 1450 1679 Yes, this is the right way forward - also for new Support noted. Consider adoption of developments in DS1 - Haltemprice villages standards indicated in the Issues and Options booklet in the LDF as these are in line with the practical approach for rural areas such as the East Riding. Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. Mrs Val Wood Support with conditions (Anlaby with Anlaby Common Parish Council) 1516 1712 Yes Noted. Consider adoption of standards indicated in the Issues and Options booklet in the LDF as these are in line with the practical approach for rural areas such as the East Riding. Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. Mr & Mrs S Fletcher Support 1517 1758 Yes. Public transport access should be encouraged Noted. Consider adoption of Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 133 but for many areas this is not a reality at present and standards indicated in extra restrictions on the use of the car would lead to the Issues and Options social exclusion. booklet in the LDF as these are in line with the practical approach for rural areas such as the East Riding. Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. Mr Joseph Support Richardson (Jos Richardson & Son Ltd) 554 1776 Having considered the parking standards in the These concerns are noted and it is likely Consider adoption of Yorkshire and Humber RSS, it is clear that the parking that such additional parking would be standards indicated in standards within the DPD tend towards the least rarely approved. There was much the Issues and Options restrictive standards. However, the DPD standards do emphasis, in this Transport DPD issues booklet in the LDF as comply with the RSS standards and therefore this is and options, on reducing use of the these are in line with not an issue. The Agency does have concern that in private car and replacing it by using public the practical approach the note supporting Table 6.1 of the DPD it is stated transport - including some very ambitious for rural areas such as 'We might allow more parking for non-residential schemes, which we would expect the the East Riding. development if there is proven additional need, for Highways Agency to support (albeit they Ensure that they are example to serve a lack of supply in a town centre'. are not always 'highways' schemes clearly understandable Such allowance for specific developments to avoid directly, for example, the Hull-Beverley- and justified. The note compliance with these standards is a situation that the York rail route). The Agency's to Table 6.1 in the Agency would wish to avoid, as this could encourage understanding of the problems of our Issues and Options car use and the potential use of the Strategic Highway large rural area is noted and welcomed. booklet should be Network. deleted as a similar note is not now included within the adopted version of the RSS. Mr Graham Observations The Agency appreciates the issues associated with Titchener high car ownership levels and lack of public transport (Highways Agency) in the villages. However, the Agency considers that this does not warrant parking standards being exceeded and rather, the Agency would expect further focus to be placed on increasing opportunities to travel by non-car modes in these areas 1518

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 134 Mr Ashley Stratford (Halcrow Group Ltd) 1514 1818 In general this has to be judged on a case by case Noted and this would be the intention. Consider adoption of basis standards indicated in the Issues and Options booklet in the LDF as these are in line with the practical approach for rural areas such as the East Riding. Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. Hedon Town Observations Council (Hedon Town Council) 970 1826 We believe that this approach would only be The approach has only been suggested Consider adoption of sustainable and appropriate in locations where it can because, despite the best efforts of the standards indicated in clearly be demonstrated that there is insufficient public Council and public transport providers, it the Issues and Options transport. Furthermore, the Council should adopt is clear that public transport cannot meet booklet in the LDF as transport policy that, as a matter of priority, seeks to all residents' aspirations in all parts of these are in line with develop the public transport infrastructure within the such a large rural area. Efforts will the practical approach East Riding and target areas with poor current continue to improve public transport for rural areas such as provision for improvements. Please also see our infrastructure - including some ambitious the East Riding. response to T6 above: setting least restrictive parking schemes in this DPD. As mentioned at Ensure that they are supply standards within Market Villages that are close comment number 1825, above, it is not clearly understandable to internationally and nationally important wildlife sites likely that marginally greater parking and justified. could risk causing cumulative adverse impacts on standards will lead to noticeable these sites. This would be particularly relevant in additional land take that would adversely settlements that require more than one new impact upon wildlife sites. As stated community facility to fulfil their function as Market there, impacts on wildlife sites would Villages. always be considered before any allocations were to be made, or, where sites are already allocated, at the planning application stage. Mr Martin Kerby Observations (RSPB Northern England Region) 1521 1842 Generally yes Noted. Consider adoption of Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 135 standards indicated in the Issues and Options booklet in the LDF as these are in line with the practical approach for rural areas such as the East Riding. Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. Mr Douglas E Support Kendall (North Cave Parish Council) 1475 1856 Yes Noted. Consider adoption of standards indicated in the Issues and Options booklet in the LDF as these are in line with the practical approach for rural areas such as the East Riding. Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. Jean Kitchen Support 252 1903 No comment Noted. No specific action required. Mr T Ross Other (Hull and East Riding Rail Users Association) 484 1929 Yes Noted. Consider adoption of standards indicated in the Issues and Options booklet in the LDF as these are in line with the practical approach for rural areas such as the East Riding. Ensure that they are Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 136 clearly understandable and justified. Mrs Jean Mayland Support (Barmston & Fraisthorpe Parish Council) 313 1941 The Council is right to adopt the least restrictive Noted. Consider adoption of parking supply standards for non-residential standards indicated in developments the Issues and Options booklet in the LDF as these are in line with the practical approach for rural areas such as the East Riding. Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. Mrs S. Mason Support (Eastrington Parish Council) 1523 1956 Yes Noted. Consider adoption of standards indicated in the Issues and Options booklet in the LDF as these are in line with the practical approach for rural areas such as the East Riding. Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. Julie Abraham Support 427 1970 Yes Noted. Consider adoption of standards indicated in the Issues and Options booklet in the LDF as these are in line with the practical approach for rural areas such as the East Riding. Ensure that they are Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 137 clearly understandable and justified. Mrs M. Barker Support (North Ferriby Parish Council) 1528 1999 Yes Noted. Consider adoption of standards indicated in the Issues and Options booklet in the LDF as these are in line with the practical approach for rural areas such as the East Riding. Ensure that they are clearly understandable and justified. Mr Ian Pitcher Support (Melbourne Parish Council)

Chapter 7 Heading 480 1003 Yes Noted. No specific action required. Mrs J. Other Heathershaw (Hornsea Residents Association)

Chapter 7 Para 7.1 480 1004 Agreed Noted. No specific action required. Mrs J. Observations Heathershaw (Hornsea Residents Association)

Chapter 7 Para 7.2 480 1005 Agreed Noted. No specific action required. Mrs J. Observations Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 138 Heathershaw (Hornsea Residents Association)

Chapter 7 Para 7.3 480 1007 Agreed Noted. No specific action required. Mrs J. Observations Heathershaw (Hornsea Residents Association)

Chapter 7 Para 7.4 480 1008 Surely, all services provided in market town will have This response is also made in the context Carry forward the to be reviewed as building development increases and of this respondent's further comment overall approach set thus should be done at the planning stage. below (no. 1009). As new development in out in the Issues and centres is considered at the planning Options Document to stage, its impacts are predicted and progress on the LDF. measures taken accordingly e.g. to provide parking spaces, or to contribute to other alternative approaches such as may be determined through a Transport Assessment. This document and the LTP are attempting to make the general situation better by protecting and investing in schemes that should lead to traffic reduction and alternatives to the private car, such as improved public transport provision for example. Mrs J. Observations Heathershaw (Hornsea Residents Association)

Chapter 7 Para 7.5 480 1009 Doubtful effect unless services are vastly improved Through LTP2 investment targeted on the Continue to develop the people unlikely to leave their cars. settlements for growth, the Council is overall approach set attempting to greatly improve Public out in the Issues and Transport services and is considering the Options Document protection of land to allow other ambitious within the LDF. Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 139 projects to happen at some time in the future. Mrs J. Observations Heathershaw (Hornsea Residents Association)

Chapter 7 Para 7.6 480 1010 Understood Noted. No specific action required. Mrs J. Observations Heathershaw (Hornsea Residents Association)

Chapter 7 Para 7.7 480 1011 Agreed Noted. No specific action required. Mrs J. Observations Heathershaw (Hornsea Residents Association)

Chapter 7 Para 7.9 480 1013 Agreed Noted. No specific action required. Mrs J. Observations Heathershaw (Hornsea Residents Association) 970 1827 Mr Martin Kerby Observations Regarding paragraph 7.9, we believe that the Council Each development is usually unique and, Reconsider the (RSPB Northern should determine the appropriate level of a as such, will require a Transport suggestion that England Region) ‘commuted sum’ with primary reference to transport- Assessment to see what impacts it will 'commuted sums' might related issues/impacts, rather than automatically have and what might be done to reduce automatically be lower lowering the sum in particular areas because of other them. On reflection, it is probably agreed in some circumstances, considerations. By creating a lower quality local that there should be no automatic for example if less than environment, new developments may stymie dispensations and that each case should 400 metres from a regeneration if adverse effects such as congestion be taken on its merits regardless of where transport node, as this and air pollution are not fully mitigated. The Council it may be proposed. could mean any bus Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 140 should therefore establish a criteria-based policy to stop. assess the impact of a given development across a range of transport indicators, and then calculate a commuted sum of a relevant scale to the impacts identified. Ultimately the impact of a particular development must be the central factor in determining the commuted sum.

Chapter 7 Para 7.10 1423 300 Mr Simon Parker Observations What are car clubs? (Carplus) Car clubs are a great way of enjoying the flexibility of Car clubs could no doubt be useful in Whilst car clubs should a car without having to own one. Cars are parked in reducing congestion, pollution, travel be a welcome addition reserved bays within easy distance of where members demand and probably have all the other to the armoury in the live or work, and can be booked for as little as an hour benefits claimed by the respondent. fight against increasing or up to a few days. Members have low overheads However, it is doubtful that they could road traffic, the general and then pay as they drive. easily become part of the formal planning approach set out in the process and be subject to conditions, as Issues and Options they are essentially entities that could Document should disappear at short notice. In such continue to be situations what would then happen to developed along the residents left 'high and dry' by a car club's lines described there, demise? Also, it is likely that they would as CAR CLUBS could tend to work best in densely populated not be relied upon to urban areas, rather than the very rural continue in operation East Riding. Whilst they could have a ad-infinitum. Ensure very useful supplementary role and, as that car clubs are such, would be most welcome, it is not referred to, particularly considered that they could form the as an element of Green foundation of traffic reduction measures in Travel Plans, in the new residential areas in the East Riding. LDF. The use of car clubs as part of Green Travel Plans would be most welcome, however.

Car clubs help to: § reduce dependency on the car § increase walking, cycling and use of public transport § solve parking problems § achieve low-car housing § improve rural accessibility Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 141 § develop workplace travel plans

Recent research with established UK car clubs has shown that the creation of one car club vehicle displaces six private vehicles. In addition, 47% of members either gave up a car or did not buy a car, as a result of car club membership. There was also a reported increase of use of public transport, walking and cycling by car club members. Benefits of car clubs. General

Car clubs help reduce the number of journeys made by an individual, and help reduce the overall number of cars on the road. This will have the immediate effect of reducing emissions, especially as many of the cars displaced by car clubs are older, more polluting vehicles. Congestion is reduced by having fewer cars on the road, and town and city centre parking problems are alleviated.

Benefits to individuals

Research from car clubs in the UK show that people reduce their motoring costs by as much as 50% after discarding private vehicles and joining car clubs. Parking pressure at home is alleviated and people benefit from the wider positive environmental effects of car clubs. People will also benefit from greater use of sustainable travel, walking and cycling.

Benefits to new housing developments and the planning process

Car clubs can readily be incorporated into new housing developments.

By creating plans to include car club vehicles, the developer and planning authority can reduce the amount of parking required, thereby allowing either a higher build density, and/or an increase in green

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 142 space on a development.

The provision of a car club at a new development will give significant reductions in the traffic impact of a new scheme, and lessen the need for other traffic solutions such as nearby road improvements etc.

Developers of low car developments, especially on town centre, brownfield sites can use the car club as a highly effective marketing tool to reduce the perceived problem of parking restrictions at a new scheme.

Car clubs can form an important part of Green Travel Plans at the planning stage.

Benefits to employers

Car clubs can be used by employers, especially those in city and town centres, to provide essential staff mobility. The local car club can be a cheap and easily administered replacement of expensive and unwieldy car pools and staff mileage allowances. Giving staff the means of mobility for business use encourages them to travel to work via walking, cycling, public transport or lift sharing. This will lead to a reduction in congestion and therefore pollution at busy times.

Car clubs will form a vital part of staff travel planning. 539 695 Lastly, the Council may wish to consider emphasising Green Travel Plans undoubtedly have a Ensure that Green that developers would be expected to provide green part to play in fulfilling the Council's Travel Plans are travel plans on larger projects. Also, that the DPD general aims set out in the JSP as the referred to in the LDF. could promote the concept of co-location of Interim Core Strategy, which also refers to community facilities to assist reduction in the need to the location of community facilities (which travel. generally speaking should be well served by public transport). Mr Henryk Observations Peterson (Sport England) 480 1015 Agreed Noted. No specific action required. Mrs J. Observations

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 143 Heathershaw (Hornsea Residents

Association) 1482 1570 We consider that paragraph 7.10 would benefit from The whole thrust of the JSP interim Core Continue to develop the amendment for it to aim for development to be located Strategy on which the Transport DPD was overall approach set where easily accessible from existing or proposed to be based is to do with 'Accessibility out in the Issues and sustainable transport networks. Planning.' The respondent can rest Options Document assured that the Council will take a within the LDF. joined-up approach to Planning and Transport, as stated in this paragraph (7.10 of the Issues and Options consultation document). Mr James Durham Observations (Hull City Council)

Chapter 7 Proposed Policy TDPD 1 480 1020 Understood Noted. No specific action required. Mrs J. Observations Heathershaw

Question T8 266 23 There appears to be an assumption that planning gain This is a valid point. It should be made clear will be used to fund only road improvements. What that conditions attached about other modes of transport? In West Yorkshire a to planning consents, or planning obligation has been used to secure an commuted sums, extension to a railway station platform. should refer to the most appropriate solution, which may be any form of transport, not just road transport. Mr Philip Taylor Observations (Minsters Rail Campaign) 569 38 The rewards need to be obvious to those most Agreed. This is a legal requirement as Ensure this is made affected by the developments. obligations must relate to the clear in LDF. Christine A Brown Observations development being considered. 465 75 No comments regarding planning conditions. Noted. There are already approved Ensure that commuted Transport improvements planning obligations should Council guidelines for the use of sums are spent on the be in addition to those for community facilities and commuted sums, which for transport most appropriate

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 144 should be ring-fenced for use in the relevant parish / matters may not be best spent in the local projects. For transport town. with consultation with appropriate parish / town area. matters they may be council best used other than in the parish of origin, which may require an amendment to the guidelines for using commuted sums. Mrs K. Richmond Observations (South Cave Parish Council) 248 88 The Town Council agrees the principal (?) but would Noted. There are already approved Ensure that commuted wish to see ERYC consulting with town and parish Council guidelines for the use of sums are spent on the councils on how it should be spent within 2 years of commuted sums, which for transport most appropriate the funds handed to the local councils to be spent on matters may not be best spent in the local projects. For transport local schemes area. matters they may be best used other than in the parish of origin, which may require an amendment to the guidelines for using commuted sums. Mrs C. Hird Support with conditions (Snaith and Cowick Parish Council) 1022 102 Yes -any 'commuted sum' from a development should Commuted sums should be used to rectify Ensure that commuted be used for the benefit of the community, as at specific problems that the development sums are spent on the present - not for transport issues. causes. If they are transport issues that most appropriate have to be dealt with, then expenditure on projects. For transport transport will be appropriate. Commuted matters they may be sums are not a form of 'tax' for local use best used other than in on any unrelated proposal. the parish of origin, which may require an amendment to the guidelines for using commuted sums. Commuted sums raised to solve transport- related problems should be spent on Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 145 transport-related solutions in order to remain legal. Mr Graham Lenton Support 306 115 I do believe that more effort by everyone needs to be Noted, though, unfortunately, the Council Ensure that commuted put into improving public transport, if you can ask cannot completely control ticket pricing sums are spent on the developers to contribute funds towards it. It is vital to policy. most appropriate lower costs to allow more people the opportunity to projects. For transport make use of it matters they may be best used other than in the parish of origin, which may require an amendment to the guidelines for using commuted sums. Ms Nicola Salvidge Observations (Sigglesthorne CE VC Primary School) 1413 128 You need to deal with the whole picture , Noted, though 'improvements' can Ensure that commuted improvements for all road users, must improve actually have the opposite effect by sums are spent on the congestion attracting new users to areas that were most appropriate not previously perceived to have been projects. For transport problem areas in terms of congestion. matters they may be best used other than in the parish of origin, which may require an amendment to the guidelines for using commuted sums. Ms Nicola Salvidge Observations (Seaton PC) 426 162 No Noted. No specific action required. Mrs M. Barker Other (Swanland Parish Council) 1421 214 Fully support this commitment, but there will be Noted. Ensure that commuted instances where specific location pressures are sums are spent on the caused by new developments, in these cases it is most appropriate right to use 'Planning Obligations' to provide solutions. projects. For transport matters they may be Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 146 best used other than in the parish of origin, which may require an amendment to the guidelines for using commuted sums. Cllr Symon Fraser Support with conditions (Conservative Group) 1422 222 Planning Conditions should be placed on new Noted. Ensure that commuted developments to finance transport improvements for sums are spent on the all road users. most appropriate projects. For transport matters they may be best used other than in the parish of origin, which may require an amendment to the guidelines for using commuted sums. Mr Steve Knifton Observations (Leconfield Parish Council) 1019 235 A good policy Support noted. Ensure that commuted sums are spent on the most appropriate projects. For transport matters they may be best used other than in the parish of origin, which may require an amendment to the guidelines for using commuted sums. Miss K. E. Laister Support (Ferriby Conservation Society) 845 249 We support this Support noted. Ensure that commuted sums are spent on the Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 147 most appropriate projects. For transport matters they may be best used other than in the parish of origin, which may require an amendment to the guidelines for using commuted sums. Mrs D. E. Franks Support (Paull Parish Council) 527 263 No comment Noted. No specific action required. Mrs Sally Howlat Other (Seaton Ross Parish Council) 843 293 Where new development takes place developers Noted. Ensure that commuted should make contribution to the local area rather than sums are spent on the costs being met by local residents and councils most appropriate projects. For transport matters they may be best used other than in the parish of origin, which may require an amendment to the guidelines for using commuted sums. Mrs K. Roe Observations (Langtoft Parish Council) 1426 353 Whilst we agree with the principle of seeking planning Noted. Regard would always be had to Ensure that commuted contributions, it must be ensured that due regard is the current legal framework at the time sums are spent on the had to Circular 05/2005 and the tests contained any commuted sums were under most appropriate therein, in particular that any request must be directly consideration. projects. For transport related to the proposed development and fairly and matters they may be reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed best used other than in development. the parish of origin, which may require an amendment to the guidelines for using Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 148 commuted sums. George Wimpey Support with PLC conditions We agree with the principal of reducing the level of Support with reservations noted. It is Reconsider the any required contribution if the sites are within 400 agreed that 'node' needs clarification if it principle of reducing metres of a transport node, but consider it imperative is to be a significant factor. The whole contributions within that the term ' transport node' is clarified as a bus stop issue of reducing contributions within 400m of a transport is as much of a node as a railway station 400m of a node needs further 'node' as part of the consideration. LDF core strategy. Make sure that the term 'node' is properly defined. 1425 Ms Liz Beighton (Spawforths) 1431 367 Whilst we agree with the principle of seeking planning Noted. Regard would always be had to Ensure that commuted contributions, it must be ensured that due regard is the current legal framework at the time sums are spent on the had to Circular 05/2005 and the tests contained any commuted sums were under most appropriate therein, in particular that any request must be directly consideration. projects. For transport related to the proposed development and fairly and matters they may be reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed best used other than in development. the parish of origin, which may require an amendment to the guidelines for using commuted sums.. Miller Strategic Support with Land conditions We agree with the principal of reducing the level of Support with reservations noted. It is Reconsider the any required contribution if the sites are within 400 agreed that 'node' needs clarification if it principle of reducing metres of a transport node, but consider it imperative is to be a significant factor. The whole contributions within that the term ' transport node' is clarified as a bus stop issue of reducing contributions within 400m of a transport is as much of a node as a railway station 400m of a node needs further 'node' as part of the consideration. LDF core strategy. Make sure that the term 'node' is properly defined. 1425 Ms Liz Beighton (Spawforths) 1430 381 Whilst we agree with the principle of seeking planning Noted. Regard would always be had to Ensure that commuted

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 149 contributions, it must be ensured that due regard is the current legal framework at the time sums are spent on the had to Circular 05/2005 and the tests contained any commuted sums were under most appropriate therein, in particular that any request must be directly consideration. projects. For transport related to the proposed development and fairly and matters they may be reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed best used other than in development. the parish of origin, which may require an amendment to the guidelines for using commuted sums. Mr Cowton Support with conditions We agree with the principal of reducing the level of Support with reservations noted. It is Reconsider the any required contribution if the sites are within 400 agreed that 'node' needs clarification if it principle of reducing metres of a transport node, but consider it imperative is to be a significant factor. The whole contributions within that the term ' transport node' is clarified as a bus stop issue of reducing contributions within 400m of a transport is as much of a node as a railway station 400m of a node needs further 'node' as part of the consideration. LDF core strategy. Make sure that the term 'node' is properly defined. 1425 Ms Liz Beighton (Spawforths) 1429 392 Agree with standards but this needs to be reflected in Noted. It is agreed that design needs to Design issues are building design be used to help solve transport and other covered in the problems. emerging Core Strategy and associated Supplementary Planning Documents. Needs to ensure that transport issues are dealt with in that guidance. Mr John Winter Support with conditions 1432 406 We accept that Planning Conditions and Planning Noted. Regard would always be had to Ensure that any Obligations are key tools for Councils in respect of the current legal framework at the time Planning Obligations financing transport improvements. However, we feel it any commuted sums were under accord with Circular appropriate to reiterate guidance contained in Circular consideration. 05/2005. For transport 05/2005 Planning Obligations, which states that any matters they may best Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 150 obligations must be: be used other than in the parish of origin. Ms Kathryn Jukes Observations (Carter Jonas LLP) I. ‘Relevant to planning

II. Necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms

III. Directly related to the proposed development

IV. Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development; and

V. Reasonable in all other respects’

We would also reiterate the statement in paragraph B9 of the Circular which states: ‘Planning obligations should not be used solely to resolve existing deficiencies in infrastructure provision or secure contributions to the wider achievement of wider planning objectives that are not necessary to allow consent to be given for a particular development.’ The guidance is quite clear as to the parameters of what the Council might negotiate. 1435 439 No comment Noted. No specific action required. Mrs H Hook Other 1437 453 No comment Noted. No specific action required. Unknown Other (Albanwise Ltd) 1436 Mr Michael O'Connell (Entec UK Ltd) 1153 487 I agree with these proposals Support noted. Ensure that commuted sums are spent on the most appropriate projects. For transport matters they may be best used other than in Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 151 the parish of origin, which may require an amendment to the guidelines for using commuted sums. Mr Richard Bryan Support 1442 503 Yes but a lot depends on the size of the development Noted. The size of the development and Ensure that commuted scale of any issue needing resolution sums are spent on the would always have a bearing on the scale most appropriate of contribution that could be negotiated. projects. For transport matters they may be best used other than in the parish of origin, which may require an amendment to the guidelines for using commuted sums. W Buckle Support with conditions (Wetwang Parish Council) 1443 526 No Noted. No specific action required. Ms Sarah Watson Other (Sigglesthorne Parish Council) 833 711 It is very difficult to minimise the need for travel in a Noted and understood. Continue the approach rural area, jobs are scarce and commuting is a set out in the Issues necessity. Public transport costs are rising and Options Document dramatically & even a short expensive journey by bus as it is attempting to (2 miles) is a fraction of the cost in a car especially for solve this difficult families problem in the most sustainable way in line with higher level guidance. Ms H. Harvatt Observations (Hollym Parish Council) 1452 752 We should not be giving planning permission to Noted. The ability to reduce traffic Continue the approach developments that need traffic improvements in built impacts of developments in built up areas set out in the Issues up areas. Major developments such as at Goole is appreciated and the Transport DPD and Options Document Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 152 industrial area applications need to finance traffic attempted to deal with these through development of improvements developments as well as others. The the LDF as it is Goole site has led to a new freight railway attempting to solve this spur (which will take thousands of lorries difficult problem in the off the road over many years), major most sustainable way in motorway junction improvements and a line with higher level walking/cycling network within the site guidance. and linking to the town. In essence, the Councillor's comments echo what the Transport DPD was trying to achieve. Cllr Winifred I Observations Knight 1464 829 No Noted. No specific action required. Stephanie Marriott Other (Hornsea and District Chamber of Trade) 480 935 No Noted. No specific action required. Mrs J. Other Heathershaw (Hornsea Residents Association) 480 1021 Agree Support noted. Continue the approach set out in the Issues and Options Document as it is attempting to solve this difficult problem in the most sustainable way in line with higher level guidance. Mrs J. Support Heathershaw (Hornsea Residents Association) 1474 1397 Yes a good proposal, future developments must take Support noted. Continue the approach into account an adequate road infrastructure and set out in the Issues safety measures and this should not be to the and Options Document detriment or compromise existing residents parking. as it is attempting to Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 153 solve this difficult problem in the most sustainable way in line with higher level guidance. Sue Atkins Support with conditions (Middleton on the Wolds Parish Council) 1499 1464 We strongly support these proposals. Support noted. Continue the approach set out in the Issues and Options Document as it is attempting to solve this difficult problem in the most sustainable way in line with higher level guidance. Mr David Horsley Support with For larger developments we believe this should Noted. There are already approved Ensure that commuted conditions include roads and public transport which is not Council guidelines for the use of sums are spent on the immediately adjacent to the site. commuted sums, which for transport most appropriate matters may not be best spent in the local projects. For transport area. matters they may be best used other than in the parish of origin, which may require an amendment to the guidelines for using commuted sums. (Beverley Town Moreover, even modest developments must be Noted, though before refusal is Council) refused where the transport infrastructure is contemplated, the use of Obligations or inadequate. Conditions should first be considered. 1502 1504 If this policy adds to the cost of starting or expanding The costs of any business start-up Continue the approach a business it should be resisted as imposing too great decision should be ascribed to the set out in the Issues a burden. Provision of an adequate infrastructure is relevant business, in line with higher level and Options Document the business of the state (or LAs) not individuals guidance. The 'state' can no longer pick as it is attempting to up such costs in full - nor should it. solve this difficult problem in the most sustainable way, in line with higher level

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 154 guidance. J Burnett (East Observations Cottingwith Parish Council) 1482 1593 No Comment. Noted. No specific action required. Mr James Durham Other (Hull City Council) 694 1614 The implications of emerging national policy, in This advice is noted, but at the moment Ensure that commuted particular that set out in the Government’s response to we must work with the system currently in sums are spent on the the Barker Review of Housing Supply (dated 13 place. If it changes, these documents most appropriate December 2005), may need to be taken into account. must be amended. projects. For transport If the proposals for a Planning Gain Supplement are matters they may be implemented and the Supplement is introduced, best used other than in section106 planning obligations could be scaled back the parish of origin, to cover Affordable Housing and issues related which may require an specifically to the site. A decision on Planning Gain amendment to the Supplement has yet to be made. guidelines for using commuted sums.

Mr A McIntyre Observations (Government Office Planning Obligations: Practice Guidance has been Ensure development of for Yorkshire and published by DCLG along with a model planning the Core Strategy the Humber) obligation agreement. The new Practice Guidance recognises emerging complements ODPM Circular 05/2005 and is intended CIL proposals. to contribute towards improving delivery of planning obligations through the existing s106 regime. You should take this into account in taking forward the Core Strategy to its next stage of development. 1511 1656 No Noted. No specific action required. Mr Peter Lacy Other 1450 1680 Commercial Developments - this is essential. Para This is noted and may need to be Ensure that commuted 7.8 highlights that the spend would be in the relevant reconsidered as the effects on the sums are spent on the parish. This may not be where the problems are. The transport system of a new development most appropriate 'spend' area should be on a distance measurement. may show themselves some distance projects. For transport away, rather than in the immediate matters they may be locality. best used other than in the parish of origin, which may require an Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 155 amendment to the guidelines for using commuted sums. Mrs Val Wood Observations (Anlaby with Anlaby Common Parish Council) 1513 1703 Planning conditions and other obligations can only be Noted. Obligations would be handled in Ensure that commuted used to mitigate the net impact of new development. accordance with Circular 05/2005, or the sums are spent on the In such cases can be appropriate to finance transport current advice at the time, to ensure most appropriate improvements. propriety. projects. For transport matters they may be best used other than in the parish of origin, which may require an amendment to the guidelines for using commuted sums.

Melrose PLC Observations

110 Mr Andy Brown (MCP Planning and Development) 1516 1713 Dependent on the proposals for the new Noted. No specific action developments required. Mr & Mrs S Fletcher Observations 1517 1760 We agree in part with this intention but any conditions Noted. Obligations would be handled in Ensure that commuted or Planning Obligations must be directly related to the accordance with Circular 05/2005, or the sums are spent on the development proposed. Additionally, where current advice at the time, to ensure most appropriate developments will bring direct benefits to the wider propriety. projects. For transport area, eg socio-economic, then payments may not matters they may be always be appropriate and alternative finance sources best used other than in must be considered. Each individual proposal must be the parish of origin, viewed on its merits rather than imposing a 'blanket which may require an policy' amendment to the guidelines for using commuted sums.

Mr Joseph Support with Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 156 Richardson conditions (Jos Richardson & Son Ltd) 554 1777 The Agency is supportive of the use of Planning The Highways Agency would always be Ensure that commuted Conditions and Obligations to provide for measures to consulted on any development affecting sums are spent on the mitigate transport issues arising from new the Strategic Highway Network (as it is most appropriate developments, but would like to see specific reference now). Advice from the Agency is always projects. For transport made to the strategic highway network (SHN). Further taken into consideration. matters they may be the Agency would like to be consulted from the best used other than in earliest opportunity to discuss any mitigation the parish of origin, measures affecting the SHN, imposed by Planning which may require an Obligations, which will need to be carried out in amendment to the accordance with HA development control policy as guidelines for using stipulated in Circular 04/2001 or any subsequent commuted sums. guidance. The Highways Agency should be referred to appropriately in the LDF where the impacts of any development may affect the Strategic Highway Network. Mr Graham Support with Titchener conditions (Highways Agency)

1518 Mr Ashley Stratford (Halcrow Group Ltd) 1520 1810 Where a development of more than 100 medium sized Noted. There may be many different Ensure that commuted houses takes place by 1 or more developers, planning impacts caused by such developments - sums are spent on the gain should be used to improve access to hence many different uses for any most appropriate development. commuted sums realised as a result of it. projects. For transport matters they may be best used other than in the parish of origin, which may require an amendment to the guidelines for using commuted sums. Mr John Ledger Observations

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 157 1521 1843 Yes this should have been in force several years ago At the moment, commuted sums can only Ensure that commuted and especially for the introduction of road safety be used for capital works - which sums are spent on the proposals, the upgrading and repairs to existing road excludes maintenance. If this changes most appropriate should also be financed via planning gain. our approach could be amended. projects. For transport matters they may be best used other than in the parish of origin, which may require an amendment to the guidelines for using commuted sums. This would need amendment in the event of national guidance changing, for example, if in the future expenditure on maintenance items as opposed to just capital works was to be allowed. Mr Douglas E Support with Kendall conditions (North Cave Parish Council) 1475 1857 Agreed Support noted. Ensure that commuted sums are spent on the most appropriate projects. For transport matters they may be best used other than in the parish of origin, which may require an amendment to the guidelines for using commuted sums. Jean Kitchen Support 252 1904 There appears to be an assumption that ''planning This is a valid point. It should be made clear gain'' will be used to fund only road improvements. that conditions attached What about other modes of transport? In West to planning consents, or Yorkshire planning gain has used to secure an commuted sums, Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 158 extension to a railway station platform. should refer to the most appropriate solution, which may be any form of transport, not just road transport. Mr T Ross Observations (Hull and East Riding Rail Users Association) 1472 1917 The LAF supports the use of Planning Conditions and This is a valid point. It should be made clear Obligations to make improvements for all road users that conditions attached and not just motor vehicles. Road building and to planning consents, or widening often do not effectively tackle congestion in commuted sums, the long-term, especially if more and more people are should refer to the most making more and more car journeys. Congestion also appropriate solution, needs to be tackled by promoting public transport, and which may be any form encouraging people to use non-motorised forms of of transport, not just transport, especially for shorter journeys. There is still road transport. Jennifer Aird Support with a lot to be done to improve road safety so that cycling conditions and walking can be an option for more people. (East Riding of Congestion cannot be tackled without measures to Yorkshire & reduce the number of cars on roads. Kingston Upon Hull Joint Local Access Forum) 484 1930 Yes Presumably this comment implies Ensure that commuted agreement. If so, this is noted. sums are spent on the most appropriate projects. For transport matters they may be best used other than in the parish of origin, which may require an amendment to the guidelines for using commuted sums. Mrs Jean Mayland Other (Barmston & Fraisthorpe Parish Council) 1523 1957 No. Agree with principal Presumably this comment implies Ensure that commuted Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 159 agreement. If so, this is noted. sums are spent on the most appropriate projects. For transport matters they may be best used other than in the parish of origin, which may require an amendment to the guidelines for using commuted sums. Julie Abraham Support 427 1971 Agree Support noted. Ensure that commuted sums are spent on the most appropriate projects. For transport matters they may be best used other than in the parish of origin, which may require an amendment to the guidelines for using commuted sums. Mrs M. Barker Support (North Ferriby Parish Council) 1528 2000 OK - no comment Noted. Ensure that commuted sums are spent on the most appropriate projects. For transport matters they may be best used other than in the parish of origin, which may require an amendment to the guidelines for using commuted sums. Mr Ian Pitcher Support (Melbourne Parish Council) 838 2035 It is likely to prove necessary. Getting people out of Support noted. Ensure that commuted their cars will not be easy. sums are spent on the Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 160 most appropriate projects. For transport matters they may be best used other than in the parish of origin, which may require an amendment to the guidelines for using commuted sums. Mrs D. Beare Observations (Hook Parish Council)

Question T9 266 24 Other than our comment in T8, no. to planning consents, or commuted sums, should refer to the most appropriate solution, which may be any form of transport, not just road transport. Mr Philip Taylor Observations (Minsters Rail Campaign) 569 39 Use of initials. This leaves too much investigation for This is noted and understood. Avoid the use of initials, an ordinary member of the public to ?????? I have acronyms etc in already spent hours trying to read the plan finding subsequent documents what all the initials mean again & again make it wherever possible. Christine A Brown Observations harder. 465 76 Yes. Additional wording required re answer to Traffic levels resulting from development Ensure that the LDF question T8 and that 'the applicant is required to are always considered - sometimes always requires the demonstrate the level of generated traffic...... ' extensively. The policy already says, "We assessment and will consider the impact of generated mitigation of the traffic traffic from new development when impacts of any making Planning decisions…." development. Mrs K. Richmond Observations (South Cave Parish Council) 248 89 We agree with the policy to use planning conditions to Support noted. Ensure that the LDF Transport Development Plan Document Background R eport April 2010 161 deal with traffic issues created by new developments always requires the assessment and mitigation of the traffic impacts of any development. Mrs C. Hird Support (Snaith and Cowick Parish Council) 1022 103 Yes -any 'commuted sum' from a development should Commuted sums should be used to rectify Ensure that commuted be used for the benefit of the community, as at any problems the development causes. If sums are spent on the present - not for transport issues. they are transport issues that have to be most appropriate dealt with then expenditure on transport projects. For transport will be appropriate. Commuted sums are matters they may be not a form of 'tax' for local use on any best used other than in unrelated proposal and, in any event, the parish of origin, solving traffic problems is surely a which may require an community benefit. amendment to the guidelines for using commuted sums. Commuted sums raised to solve transport- related problems should be spent on the associated solutions in order to remain legal. Mr Graham Lenton Support 306 116 Agree Support noted. Ensure that the LDF always requires the assessment and mitigation of the traffic impacts of any development. Ms Nicola Salvidge Support (Sigglesthorne CE VC Primary School) 1413 129 Agree Support noted. Ensure that the LDF always requires the assessment and mitigation of the traffic impacts of any development. Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 162 Ms Nicola Salvidge Support (Seaton PC) 426 164 No Noted. No specific action required. Mrs M. Barker Other (Swanland Parish Council) 1422 223 I feel that the policy TDPD1 is good Support noted. Carry this general approach forward in future development of the LDF. Mr Steve Knifton Support (Leconfield Parish Council) 1019 236 These measures are necessary Support noted. Carry this general approach forward in future development of the LDF. Miss K. E. Laister Support (Ferriby Conservation Society) 845 250 We agree with this policy Support noted. Carry this general approach forward in future development of the LDF. Mrs D. E. Franks Support (Paull Parish Council) 527 264 No Noted. No specific action required. Mrs Sally Howlat Other (Seaton Ross Parish Council) 350 278 Fully support Support noted. Carry this general approach forward in future development of the LDF. Mrs K. Soltys Support (Mappleton Parish

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 163 Council) 843 294 Costs should be kept to a minimum. Park and Ride The costs associated with any commuted Carry the general options should always be considered and local sum are always appropriate, as required approach of the congestion avoided. by higher-level guidance. Congestion is document forward in always an issue, but Park and Ride may future development of not be, hence it may not always be the LDF. considered. Mrs K. Roe Observations (Langtoft Parish Council) 608 309 No Noted. No specific action required. Mrs Rosalind Other Turner (Beeford Parish

Council) 1426 354 No specific comments Noted. No specific action required. George Wimpey Other PLC

1425 Ms Liz Beighton (Spawforths) 1431 368 No specific comments Noted. No specific action required. Miller Strategic Other Land

1425 Ms Liz Beighton (Spawforths) 1430 382 No specific comments Noted. No specific action required. Mr Cowton Other

1425 Ms Liz Beighton (Spawforths) 1429 393 Positive Support noted. Carry the general

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 164 approach of the document forward in future development of the LDF. Mr John Winter Support 1432 407 We endorse the Council’s desire to adopt a joined-up It is not agreed that the approach is Carry the general approach to transport and land use planning. fragmented and disjointed. The JSP acts approach of the However, we are concerned that the approach as the Core Strategy and forms a very document forward in adopted by the Council to date in the draft LDF will not effective strategic platform for the holistic future development of result in the desired outcome. The current approach is approach that the respondent agrees is the LDF. A Core fragmented and disjointed (ERYC italics - and see needed. The Smaller Settlements DPD Strategy and italics in comment 413 below) and we are concerned identified a number of settlements where allocations DPD along that the principles and policies of this DPD do not fully very limited additional development may with Supplementary reflect those which are contained in the Smaller be allowed under very stringent Planning Documents Settlements Preferred Options DPD. This Transport circumstances. Wholesale rural growth is are now being DPD appears to recognise that there are particular not proposed. The respondent's concern developed to local circumstances that warrant an allowance to be is noted, but it is unfounded. It makes an supersede the ‘saved’ made for higher levels of car ownership in the rural interesting (diametrically opposite) JSP and Local Plans. areas. However, we do not consider this position is contrast with the comment from Yorkshire These will incorporate necessarily reflected in the Smaller Settlements DPD. Forward immediately following this one transport planning We reiterate the need for a Core Strategy to be (no. 413). policy which was agreed and for this to form a strategic platform upon originally intended for which a holistic approach is developed to spatially the transport DPD. Ms Kathryn Jukes Support with plan to deliver development across the District for the conditions next fifteen years. (Carter Jonas LLP) 1433 413 We welcome proposed policy TDPD 1 which will The contrast between this comment and Carry the general deliver a joined up approach (ERYC italics) to number 407, immediately above this one, approach of the transport and land use planning. Locating is interesting - as it is a totally opposite document forward in development so that it is easily accessible from view. Contributions have always been future development of existing transport networks is vital to reduce people's agreed through negotiation, rather than the LDF. need to travel by private vehicle and ultimately deliver being prescribed by means of a formula - sustainable communities. We welcome the general an approach that is in line with higher approach outlined in TDPD 1, and we welcome the level guidance. Mr John Pilgrim Support with use of developer contributions to improve public conditions transport accessibility to new developments. However, (Yorkshire Forward) it is important the method used to determine the required contribution is relatively straightforward and easy to apply to ensure that contributions can be agreed without causing undue delay to the planning process. Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 165 1435 440 No Noted. No specific action required. Mrs H Hook Other 1437 454 No comment Noted. No specific action required. Unknown Other (Albanwise Ltd)

1436 Mr Michael

O'Connell (Entec UK Ltd) 1153 488 No Noted. No specific action required. Mr Richard Bryan Other 1442 504 We agree with this Support noted. Carry the general approach of the document forward in future development of the LDF. W Buckle Support (Wetwang Parish Council) 1443 528 No No specific action Noted. required. Ms Sarah Watson Other (Sigglesthorne Parish Council) 833 712 It is very difficult to minimise the need for travel in a Noted and understood. This is why the Continue the approach rural area, jobs are scarce and commuting is a Transport DPD was adopting the set out in the Issues necessity. Public transport costs are rising approach set out in the Issues and and Options Document dramatically & even a short expensive journey by bus Options document. as it is attempting to (2 miles) is a fraction of the cost in car especially for solve this difficult families problem in the most sustainable way in line with higher level guidance. Ms H. Harvatt Observations (Hollym Parish Council) 1452 786 'resist development where it causes worse congestion' Noted. Carry the general Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 166 is a great concept. Pity it is too late for most of us in approach of the D1 area. We will certainly be quoting it in future document forward in future development of the LDF. Cllr Winifred I Observations Knight 1464 830 No No specific action Noted. required. Stephanie Marriott Other (Hornsea and District Chamber of Trade) 480 936 No Noted. No specific action required. Mrs J. Other Heathershaw (Hornsea Residents Association) 480 1023 Agree with the policy Support noted. Carry the general approach of the document forward in future development of the LDF. Mrs J. Support Heathershaw (Hornsea Residents

Association) 1474 1218 Appears to be a good policy Carry the general approach of the document forward in future development of Support noted. the LDF. Sue Atkins Support (Middleton on the Wolds Parish Council) 1499 1466 We strongly support these proposals. Noted. There are already approved Ensure that commuted Council guidelines for the use of sums are spent on the commuted sums, which for transport most appropriate matters may not be best spent in the local projects. For transport area. matters they may be Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 167 best used other than in the parish of origin, which may require an amendment to the guidelines for using commuted sums. Mr David Horsley Support with For larger developments we believe this should (Beverley Town conditions include roads and public transport which is not Council) immediately adjacent to the site. Moreover, even modest developments must be refused where the transport infrastructure is inadequate. 1502 1522 This needs to include business and tourism uses as The Transport DPD applies to all forms of Carry the general well as residential developments. It is false to allow development, but this should have been approach of the one usage but not the other. made absolutely clear, if it was not document forward in already. future development of the LDF but clarify that all forms of development are covered. J Burnett Observations (East Cottingwith

Parish Council) 1482 1560 The wording for policy TDPD1 needs tightening. For The first comment may have some Consider the fact that example, wouldn’t development that causes worse validity. 'worse traffic impacts' road safety or worse environmental impact need to be (or something similar) resisted? Regarding the reference to the ‘wider may be more context’ in the policy, would there need to be appropriate to take significant benefits for either the economy, road safety account of this point. and environment, or all of them, in order to fulfil the Also, clarify that caveat. improvements should be required to all three aspects, not just any one or two of them. Mr James Durham Observations This second comment is less clear-cut as there is little to choose between them and the Issues and Options version allows some flexibility. (Hull City Council) 1511 1657 No Noted. No specific action required. Mr Peter Lacy Other Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 168 1450 1681 Good Support noted. Carry the general approach of the document forward in future development of the LDF. Mrs Val Wood Support (Anlaby with Anlaby Common Parish Council) 1513 1704 The policy should be reworded to place greater The comment referring to public transport Consider rewording emphasis on the use of public transport. In particular it has merit. The allocation of particular relevant emerging Core should promote the use of previously developed sites sites is dealt with in other DPD's but Strategy policies to that adjoin or are close to the existing public transport reference to public transport in TDPD1 is introduce a reference to network. worth considering, even though public transport Accessibility Planning forms the basis of accessibility. the JSP which acts as the Core Strategy for the time being and along with the adopted RSS articulates what is meant by a 'joined-up approach.' Melrose PLC Observations

110 Mr Andy Brown (MCP Planning and Development) 1516 1714 We agree with the proposition provided that the Noted. The respondent can rest assured Carry this general benefits to the whole community are taken into on this point approach of the account in terms of economy, road safety, the document forward in environment and the lives of the ratepayers who live the future development in the council area. of the LDF. Mr & Mrs S Fletcher Support with

conditions 1517 1762 We agree with this approach. Heavier traffic flows, Noted. Carry this general should insofar as possible, be routed away from approach forward in the residential areas future development of the LDF. Mr Joseph Support Richardson (Jos Richardson & Son Ltd) 554 1778 The Agency is supportive of the use of Planning The Highways Agency would always be Ensure that commuted Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 169 Conditions and Obligations to provide for measures to consulted on any development affecting sums are spent on the mitigate transport issues arising from new the Strategic Highway Network (as it is most appropriate developments, but would like to see specific reference now). Advice from the Agency is always projects. For transport made to the strategic highway network (SHN). Further taken into consideration. matters they may be the Agency would like to be consulted from the best used other than in earliest opportunity to discuss any mitigation the parish of origin, measures affecting the SHN, imposed by Planning which may require an Obligations, which will need to be carried out in amendment to the accordance with HA development control policy as guidelines for using stipulated in Circular 04/2001 or any subsequent commuted sums Mr Graham Support with guidance. Titchener conditions (Highways Agency)

1518 Mr Ashley Stratford (Halcrow Group Ltd) 1489 1806 Section 7- support development only taking place Support noted. Carry this general where there is easy accessibility from existing approach forward in transport networks and the need for travel is further developing the minimised LDF. NC Evans Support (Holme on Spalding Moor Parish Plan

Advisory Committee) 1514 1819 This Council strongly concurs with this proposal. Support noted. Carry this general approach forward in further developing the LDF. Hedon Town Support Council (Hedon Town Council) 970 1828 We believe the policy would be strengthened if it read: These comments have merit and endorse Consider rewording ‘We will aim to locate development so it is easily others at numbers 1560 and 1704, above. relevant policies in accessible from existing transport networks, progressing the LDF to particularly public transport, and minimise the need for take account of this and travel by car…’, and ‘We will use Planning Conditions other similar comments, and Obligations to mitigate transport issues arising but without a Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 170 from new development to benefit the community and preference for road all road users, particularly those without access to users. Other types of private transport.’ transport may be equally important in some contexts. Mr Martin Kerby Observations (RSPB Northern England Region) 1521 1844 Any appraisal must not be carried out in isolation. Transport Assessments (if that is what is Carry the general meant) are all-encompassing and take approach the Issues account of all relevant issues. The JSP and Options document which acts as the Core Strategy is very forward in further much based on the principles of developing the LDF. Mr Douglas E Observations The transport network must play an important part in Accessibility Planning, at the heart of Kendall the definition of the core strategy and the local which, is the Transport Network. The development framework. purpose of the LDF/Policy System is to (North Cave Parish The formation of smaller settlements must be allow consistency of decision making and Council) developed in tandem with a transport policy which to provide a sound basis for enforcement. allows new housing only were public transport is of a In essence, what the respondent wants is suitable frequency and in an area were work is what this DPD (and others) were trying to available or were regeneration would allow work to be achieve. developed. None of these polices will mean anything unless they are (a) policed and action taken against those who do not comply and (b) a consistent approach to all planning applications is taken. 1475 1858 I agree but, all new housing developments should Speed limits and many other Traffic Carry the general have a 20MPH limit. They do in most other authorities Management measures can be approach the Issues I believe. They should also have 'STOP' white lines at introduced only when certain criteria are and Options document exit to site met. The Council's approach will generally forward in further continue to be in line with higher-level developing the LDF. guidance, which requires these criteria to be met. 20 mph limits are not universally applied to new residential areas and public transport accessibility is a key issue being taken forward by the emerging Core Strategy. Jean Kitchen Support with Bus routes should be available within walking distance

conditions from new housing developments. 20MPH limits on new developments 252 1905 None - other than that made in T8. to planning consents, or commuted sums, should refer to the most appropriate solution, which may be any form of transport, not just road transport. Mr T Ross Other (Hull and East Riding Rail Users Association) 1472 1918 The LAF supports the proposal of a joined up Support is noted. All these devices are Carry this general approach to transport and land use planning, already used by and encouraged by the approach forward within particularly if this involves benefits to the community Council in new developments with the LDF and ensure and all road users. There are a number of ways of numerous examples in various parts of that relevant policies bringing benefits to all road users. Well-designed the East Riding already. The 'joined-up relate to all forms of multi-use paths alongside roads can accommodate approach' does not just refer to road transport, not just that walkers, horse riders, cyclists, people in wheelchairs users however. involving road use. and with pushchairs, and others who are less mobile. Verges can be used as transport routes for walkers and horse riders. Or certain roads can be designated as ‘Quiet Lanes’, where all users share the road, and motor vehicle users are encouraged to slow down and give way to other users. Jennifer Aird Support with The LAF would welcome more information on how this The policy will be implemented by (East Riding of conditions policy will be implemented, and would be happy to be ensuring that the various components of Yorkshire & consulted in the future on the best ways to bring the Local Development Framework are Kingston Upon Hull benefits to all road users. not prepared in isolation from each other Joint Local Access and that they inter-relate. All the DPD's Forum) followed the Core Strategy provided temporarily by the Joint Structure Plan and this central thread should have ensured that all components 'sing from the same hymn sheet.' 484 1931 No Noted. No specific action required. Mrs Jean Mayland Other (Barmston & Fraisthorpe Parish Council) Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 172 1523 1958 No. Agree with principal Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF Julie Abraham Support 427 1972 Agree Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF Mrs M. Barker Support (North Ferriby Parish Council) 1528 2001 For rural areas must look at wider impact - not just The Transport DPD was trying to take the Carry this general local ie end points in terms of travel widest possible view, from global to local, approach forward within based on the widely-accepted principle of the LDF sustainability, as set out in the LDF's temporary JSP Core Strategy and with reference to other higher level guidance where appropriate. Mr Ian Pitcher Observations (Melbourne Parish Council) 838 2036 Idealistic but worth planning/aiming for Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF Mrs D. Beare Observations (Hook Parish Council)

Chapter 8 Para 8.2 432 280 We support all of the statements in this section. Support noted, but the issue of increasing Carry this general However, in some areas HGV through traffic is through traffic in unsuitable areas (due approach forward. The increasing due to satellite navigation systems routing perhaps to satellite navigation systems) question of growing it through streets which should be avoided for the will be referred to other relevant officers levels of HGV through reasons stated. for appropriate action. traffic should be dealt with by means of Traffic Management measures. Mrs Lorraine Vant Observations (Howden Civic Society)

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 173 Chapter 8 Para 8.4 482 208 Rail Freight Opportunities at Carnaby and Melton Jill Stephenson Observations (Network Rail) In respect of Carnaby, this is a vulnerable route, and Use of the word 'vulnerable' by Network Contact Network Rail to currently has the inability to sustain any heavy freight Rail is most disconcerting and should be establish what is meant traffic (none has run over it for 30 years). If the route queried with them immediately, since this by "vulnerable route" as had investment then there my be potential for freight is an important rail route for both the East this line, much of which traffic. however this would be subject to external Riding and the wider region. It is noted has just been renewed, funding. that freight traffic could be carried on this is important to the East route if there was a customer and if Riding, Scarborough investment was forthcoming - especially Borough and the wider if new rail freight vehicles for 'minor ' region as a whole. routes continue to be developed. It is Carry this general important that the route (and therefore the approach forward within freight option) is kept intact because the LDF. funding decisions can (and do) change at any time. The important thing is that all rail infrastructure should be kept intact, since to replace it can be prohibitively expensive once it has been (perhaps ill advisedly) removed for short term expediency - and there are many examples of this up and down the country, such as removing the Beverley to York railway line, when the formation could have easily been kept intact for the future 482 209 Proposed Freight Terminal at Melton Jill Stephenson Observations (Network Rail) We are aware of the proposed terminal and would Support noted. It is encouraging that Carry this general support this initiative and work with the developer to work is in hand. approach forward within progress. the LDF. 1482 1576 We would like to see more detail regarding the rail Noted. The terminal, based on the Carry this general freight terminal at Melton in paragraph 8.4 existing sidings and signalling approach forward within infrastructure at the former Earles' the LDF. Mr James Durham Observations Cement / Blue Circle Works, would serve (Hull City Council) the Melton industrial area, but would be available for wider use too. 252 1907 Para 8.4 mentions other opportunities for increasing This suggestion is noted. There would be Consider with Network Mr T Ross Observations freight carriage on the region's railways. The former no objection by the Council to the use of Rail, the possible (Hull and East excursion platforms 7 and 8 at Bridlington station are these existing facilities at Bridlington - indication of part of Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 174 Riding Rail Users normally not used, but platform 7 (with 8 removed) indeed they would be welcomed to reduce Bridlington Station for Association) could be a base for a rail freight facility to handle road traffic. It may be useful to discuss rail freight use on the 'Minimodal' containers and/or a rail freight multiple unit rail freight innovations such as relevant map at a later (fmu). The 'Minimodal' is a 2.5m square container 'Minimodal,' freight multiple units and stage and contact the aimed at meeting the needs of the parcels and retail 'cargo sprinters' with rail operators, in industry body, the Rail distribution sectors. The 'fmu' is a diesel multiple unit order to understand how they might Freight Group in order designed to carry freight, the aim being to increase contribute to road traffic reduction in the to understand how the power to weight ratio of freight trains and to East Riding if they are to be developed innovative rail freight provide easy reversing without having to reposition a further. Following discussion with the Rail methods might locomotive. The 'Minimodal' and 'fmu' projects were Freight Group, it is understood that contribute to road traffic awarded grants in 2000 by the then Strategic Rail derivatives of these early experiments in reduction in the East Authority under a freight innovation scheme. freight trains that can access the whole Riding. Discussions should be held with the national Rail rail network are currently being developed Freight Group and Network Rail to ascertain the to the testing stage ('TruckTrains'). If current status of the projects and whether a handling these come to fruition, the East Riding's facility at Bridlington would be feasible and worthwhile railway lines and stations could be re- within the period covered by the DPD. opened to freight traffic, which may allow major freight carriers, such as supermarkets, to rethink their logistics strategies - and Bridlington - 40 miles from a motorway - would be a case in point, where a large supermarket's delivery yard is only a few metres from an existing railhead.

Question T10 266 25 Mr Philip Taylor Support with We support this objective. Support noted. Carry forward the conditions general approach set out in the Issues and Options consultation booklet within the LDF. (Minsters Rail However this only emphasises the need for a rail link Although the principal use of the potential Carry forward Campaign) serving the central portion of the East Riding - Hull-Beverley-York railway line was aimed protection of the otherwise such developments will be concentrated on at passengers, it may provide a useful suggested Hull- the Hull - Selby/Goole and Hull - Scarborough rail alternative for heavy rail freight if needed, Beverley-York railway corridors which are the only areas offering any once the Hull-Doncaster line is running at line, which should be possibility of rail access at present. higher levels of capacity. If new freight constructed to a trains standard enabling its future use by freight Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 175 trains.

Some of the regions waterways may be suitable for The Humber and Ouse are major freight Ensure that all existing freight traffic if they can be refurbished but there waterways and British Waterways actively inland waterway wharf appears to be a question mark over funding for promote their use. Initiatives are in hand facilities are identified waterways at present. at Goole to develop their use more and and protected in loading/unloading facilities adjacent to progressing the LDF. waterways need protection from conflicting development. 569 40 Use of initials. This leaves too much investigation for This is noted and understood. Avoid the use of initials, an ordinary member of the public to ?????? I have acronyms etc in already spent hours trying to read the plan finding subsequent documents what all the initials mean again & again make it wherever possible. Christine A Brown Observations harder. Your website makes it very difficult to keep checking on all these variants 248 90 248 90 We agree with this policy and feel that where Mrs C. Hird Support with appropriate planning conditions should be applied Support noted. Carry this general conditions approach forward within the LDF. (Snaith and Cowick Parish Council) 1022 104 Fully support your views Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Mr Graham Lenton Support 306 117 Agree Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Ms Nicola Salvidge Support (Sigglesthorne CE VC Primary School) 1413 130 Agree Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Ms Nicola Salvidge Support (Seaton PC) 426 165 No Noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Mrs M. Barker Other Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 176 (Swanland Parish Council) 1422 224 I totally agree with TPD2. the use of more sustainable Support noted. Carry this general forms of transporting freight by rail and water should approach forward within be found and fewer road-based trips made. the LDF. Mr Steve Knifton Support (Leconfield Parish Council) 1019 237 This policy should be implemented Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Miss K. E. Laister Support (Ferriby Conservation Society) 845 251 We support this policy Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Mrs D. E. Franks Support (Paull Parish Council) 527 265 N/A to this area Noted, but if there are less lorries on the Carry this general road in the Seaton Ross area as a result approach forward within of this approach, it does apply to the the LDF. parish. Mrs Sally Howlat Other (Seaton Ross Parish Council) 350 279 Fully Support Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Mrs K. Soltys Support (Mappleton Parish Council) 843 295 We support the proposals - HGV traffic should be Support noted. The total removal of Carry this general restricted from 'B' roads HGV's from 'B' roads cannot be achieved, approach forward within as many of them have origins or the LDF. destinations served only by 'B'roads. Mrs K. Roe Support with conditions

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 177 (Langtoft Parish Council) 1426 355 No specific comments Noted. No specific action required. George Wimpey Other PLC

1425 Ms Liz Beighton

1431 369 No specific comments Noted. No specific action required. Miller Strategic Other Land

1425 Ms Liz Beighton (Spawforths) 1430 383 No specific comments Noted. No specific action required. Mr Cowton Other

1425 Ms Liz Beighton (Spawforths) 1429 394 Positive Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Mr John Winter Support 1433 411 We feel that further consideration should be given This is noted. The main way in which Ensure that all existing Mr John Pilgrim Observations within this document to the potential for waterways to they can be protected is to ensure that inland waterway wharf (Yorkshire Forward) carry freight, and in particular the Aire and Calder existing wharves etc are not redeveloped facilities are identified Navigation west of Goole. We feel that this DPD in such a way that their use is inhibited in and protected within the should address how strategic waterways within the future. Initiatives are already in hand at LDF. East Riding could be protected from development Goole, which is the port terminus of the which might compromise their use for carrying freight. Aire & Calder Navigation, to boost waterborne freight. 1433 414 The dependence on Heavy Good Vehicles to Support noted. A large site for potential Carry this general transport goods across the East Riding to the strategic future development at the Port of Hull lies approach within the locations of Hull and Goole Docks provides high to the south east of Hedon Haven and this LDF. Investigate the volumes of traffic across the regions road network, is in the East Riding. A rail route to that installation of a rail Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 178 leading to higher levels of congestion and pollution. area of land should be investigated so freight connection to Therefore, we welcome proposed policy TDPD 2 that that onward transmission of goods is not the Hedon Haven Site seeks new developments to achieve inter-modal road-dependent. The use of inland as it comes forward for freight transfers and encourage the use of sustainable waterways for onward movement would development Ensure transport forms for the transport of freight, also be welcomed, which is thus that all existing inland complementing Regional Transport Strategy Policy dependent on there being relevant waterway wharf T4. We consider it important that full account is taken discharge facilities inland. facilities are identified of the likely future land requirements of the Port of and protected within the Hull, particularly in relation to transport, but also other LDF. Mr John Pilgrim Observations port-related developments (Yorkshire Forward) 863 426 Definitely get freight off the roads! Make use of railway Support for the reopening of railway lines Bear in mind when Ms Samantha Support lines – re-open them and use waterways. Think is noted, as is support for the principle of considering the rail Dunwell sustainable! modal shift to waterways as well as rail. options within the LDF (Fridaythorpe and ensure that all Parish Council) existing inland waterway wharf facilities are identified and protected. 1435 441 No Noted. No specific action required. Mrs H Hook Other 1437 455 No comment Noted. No specific action Unknown Other required. (Albanwise Ltd)

1436 Mr Michael O'Connell (Entec UK Ltd) 1153 489 No Noted. No specific action required. Mr Richard Bryan Other 1442 505 Yes we agree with this. Existing industrial sites should Support noted - and for the greater use of Bear in mind when be looked at with a view to connecting to rail network rail freight. There are examples of new considering the rail and this should be a consideration when planning new rail facilities in the East Riding, such as at options within the LDF industrial estates. Goole and there is potential for more e.g. and liaise with the Rail concepts discussed at response number Freight Group to 1907 above. ascertain how rail freight innovations might help reduce road Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 179 traffic in the East Riding. W Buckle Support with For too long the view has been everything should go (Wetwang Parish conditions by road to the extent that other forms of transport Council) have all but disappeared 1443 529 No Noted. No specific action required. Ms Sarah Watson Other (Sigglesthorne Parish Council) 465 577 No comments Noted. No specific action required. Mrs K. Richmond Other (South Cave Parish Council) 1452 792 Excellent idea, use railways. It was a retrograde step Support for the greater use of rail freight Consider with Network when the Hull to Scarborough line was reduced to noted. There are examples of new rail Rail, the possible passengers only. facilities in the East Riding, such as at indication of part of Goole and there is potential for more e.g. Bridlington Station for concepts discussed at response number rail freight use on the 1907 above. relevant map at a later stage and liaise with the Rail Freight Group to ascertain how rail freight innovations might help reduce road traffic in the East Riding. Cllr Winifred I Support with Knight conditions Deliveries into urban centres should be made with The size of delivery vehicle cannot be Continue to keep Traffic smaller vehicles, restrictions please. East Riding town controlled easily, if at all in practical Management in town centres were built when use of horse and cart was the terms. centres under review norm. and introduce safety measures as required. 1464 831 No Noted. No specific action required. Stephanie Marriott Other (Hornsea and District Chamber of Trade) Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 180 480 937 No Noted. No specific action required. Mrs J. Other Heathershaw (Hornsea Residents Association) 1474 1221 East Riding of Yorkshire Council should consider as This is noted and is the theme of this Carry this general many alternative options for transportation available to DPD. approach forward within them and less reliance on cars and roads. the LDF. Sue Atkins Observations (Middleton on the Wolds Parish Council) 1499 1467 We considered this proposal too complex to deal with Noted. No specific action in a committee with a heavy agenda. required. Mr David Horsley Other (Beverley Town

Council) 1502 1530 You have to recognise that the countryside is a factory Noted and understood. By keeping our Carry this general floor. There is no option but for agriculture to send its minds open to new ideas, existing approach forward within produce via road transport, and to have necessary unsatisfactory highway conditions may be the LDF. supplies via road transport, Derwent Valley Light improved. In the meantime we must Railway was run largely for freight, and Highfield manage existing traffic and try to reduce it Station used for eg) store cattle. Both these are long where possible. J Burnett Observations gone and driving cattle along the road (walking) would (East Cottingwith not now be acceptable. Parish Council) 1482 1597 Shouldn’t there be a policy to protect sites suitable for Yes there should. This should be rectified Introduce a specific freight transfer facilities adjacent to sustainable in order to comply with JSP policies T2 reference to the networks (rail, water etc)? and T4 and adopted RSS. protection of existing rail and inland waterway freight transfer facilities within the LDF and show them on the relevant Proposals Map. Mr James Durham Observations (Hull City Council) 1511 1658 No Noted. No specific action required. Mr Peter Lacy Other Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 181 1516 1715 We agree with the proposition provided that the Support noted. Carry this general benefits to the whole community are taken into approach forward within account in terms of economy, road safety, the the LDF. Mr & Mrs S Fletcher Support with environment and the lives of the ratepayers who live conditions in the council area. 1517 1763 The promotion of rail for freight movement is Support for the greater use of rail freight Bear in mind when significant, but it is important that the vital role of road noted. There are examples of new rail considering the rail freight is not overlooked. Many local businesses are facilities in the East Riding, such as at options during further inaccessible by rail and this issue should not be Goole and there is potential for more e.g. development of the neglected, particularly where these businesses lie on concepts discussed at response number LDF. major arterial routes or close to Motorway junctions. 1907 above. Mr Joseph Observations The significance of development close to the Road based freight is not being Carry forward the Richardson (Jos motorway links cannot be overlooked without overlooked and will remain crucially general approach set Richardson & Son detriment to the local economy. Provision needs to be important. The Junction 36 site at Goole out in the Issues and Ltd) made for both road and rail. is a classic example of a major Options consultation development catering for both rail and booklet through road. Waterborne freight may also be a development of the further mode that can be handled at a LDF. new wharf adjacent to that site soon. By keeping our minds open to new ideas, existing unsatisfactory highway conditions may be improved. In the meantime we must manage existing traffic and try to reduce it where possible. Land for road, rail and waterway schemes is to be protected in the LDF. 554 1779 The Agency is supportive of this policy to transport Support noted. As previously stated, the Carry this general Mr Graham Support with freight via more sustainable modes of transport, given Highways Agency would always be approach forward Titchener conditions its particular benefit of reducing the number of road- consulted in such circumstances, as it is through the LDF. (Highways Agency) based trips. The Agency would wish to be consulted now. on any such freight facility which could have more 1518 local impacts on the strategic highway network, such Mr Ashley Stratford as increasing HGV movements at a particular junction (Halcrow Group on the network. Ltd) 1520 1811 Rail & water are not practical. Better if freight This is not agreed. Both rail and water Carry forward the travelled at off peak times like it does in some other are highly practical and are becoming general approach set European countries more so. Off peak freight transport, out in the Issues and whether road, rail or water-based,has Options consultation many problems, not least relating to booklet through nightime noise nuisance etc. Congestion, development of the Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 182 even off-peak, is becoming an issue in LDF. some areas of the country. Mr John Ledger Observations 1514 1820 Anything that can be done to reduce the number of Noted. The Council liaises very regularly Carry this general giant lorries and juggernauts on our roads is to be with Government and this point is made approach forward in the applauded . However this Council feels that much very often. LDF. Hedon Town Support with more needs to be done to pressure the Government Council conditions on this point. No Planning Authority will achieve this (Hedon Town objective if national standards are not in place Council) 970 1829 We strongly support policy that leads to increased Support noted - particularly for rail freight. Consider with Network transportation via rail freight - provided that these Rail, the possible policies do not result in adverse impacts on indication of part of designated wildlife sites - as a sustainable means of Bridlington Station for reducing carbon dioxide emissions and the effects of rail freight use on the climate change. relevant map at a later stage and liaise with the Rail Freight Group to ascertain how rail freight innovations might help reduce road traffic in the East Riding. Mr Martin Kerby Support with conditions (RSPB Northern England Region) 1521 1845 This policy would be fine if the proposed development Noted. With the development of new rail Carry this general areas are close to the required alternative transport freight initiatives and similar waterway approach forward in the links, to implement the policy rigidly would mean developments this could change. LDF and liaise with the development would be limited to a few restricted Rail Freight Group to areas. ascertain how rail freight innovations might help reduce road traffic in the East Riding. Mr Douglas E Observations Kendall (North Cave Parish Council) 252 1906 We support the proposed policy. Support noted Carry this general Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 183 approach forward within the LDF and liaise with the Rail Freight Group to ascertain how rail freight innovations might help reduce road traffic in the East Riding. Mr T Ross (Hull Support with However this only emphasises the need for a York - Although the principal use of the Hull- Carry forward and East Riding conditions Beverley rail link serving the central portion of the Beverley-York route was aimed at protection of the Rail Users East Riding - otherwise such developments will be passengers, it might provide an suggested Hull- Association) concentrated on the Hull - Selby / Goole and Hull - alternative for rail freight when needed. Beverley-York railway Scarborough rail corridors which are the only areas line, which should be offering any possibility of rail access at present. constructed to a standard enabling its future use by freight trains. 484 1932 No Noted. No specific action required. Mrs Jean Mayland Other (Barmston & Fraisthorpe Parish Council) 313 1942 This proposal is approved, subject to the requirement Noted. Carry forward the to make provision for major changes to the general approach set infrastructure as outlined in a) above [Noted in Issues out in the Issues and and Options Chapter - ID 1939] Options consultation booklet through further development of the LDF. (see also coments in respect of observation 1939 above). Mrs S. Mason Support (Eastrington Parish Council) 483 1946 We are encouraged to see that the Transport This support from the YHA is welcomed. Carry this general Document has developed an integrated freight approach forward within distribution system, which encourage the most the LDF. Jenny Poxon Support efficient and effective use of all modes of transport (Yorkshire and through proposed Policy TDPD 2. The Assembly Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 184 Humber Assembly) welcomes the strong emphasis that has been placed on the use of carrying freight by rail, multi modal links and the use of the Humber Estuary. 1523 1959 No. Agree with principal Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Julie Abraham Support 427 1973 No. Agree with the principle Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Mrs M. Barker Support (North Ferriby Parish Council) 1528 2002 OK - no comment Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Mr Ian Pitcher Support (Melbourne Parish Council) 838 2037 It has to be made to work. Is there the determination Support noted. It is already working and Carry this general to make it work? investment is going into the area to approach forward within enable freight to be kept off the roads. the LDF, and protect Examples are: new rail infrastructure wharf and rail facilities. within Hull and Goole Ports; the new freight line into Guardian Glass at Goole; the proposed capacity increase of the Hull Docks Branch Line; new proposed intermodal facilities at Goole and, hopefully; the re-use of existing railfreight sidings at Melton in the future. We would like to see even more one day, especially on the Hull-Scarborough railway line and on the Aire-Calder Navigation, or Rivers Ouse and Trent. Mrs D. Beare Observations (Hook Parish Council)

Chapter 8 Para 8.6 539 690 Sport England is pleased to note that the DPD will Support noted. Carry this general allow for appropriate sport/recreation and tourism approach forward within Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 185 facilities to locate in the countryside (paragraph 5.3); the LDF. Mr Henryk Observations that it will encourage more walking and cycling and Peterson use of public transport as sustainable forms of (Sport England) transport(6.3 & 8.6) - seeking to reverse the decline in walking and cycling and promote public health.

Question T11 266 26 What sort of support is envisaged? Would it be Noted. Support for rail is already Include specific employment policies such as loans for staff season provided by, for example providing better reference to rail, as well tickets? Support for rail should be specifically platform accessibility, cycle storage as to buses, in relevant mentioned. facilities at stations etc. Mention of rail policies being should be made, however. developed in the LDF. Mr Philip Taylor Observations (Minsters Rail Campaign) 569 41 Use of initials. This leaves too much investigation for This is noted and understood. Avoid the use of initials, an ordinary member of the public to ?????? I have acronyms etc in already spent hours trying to read the plan finding subsequent documents what all the initials mean again & again make it wherever possible. Christine A Brown Observations harder. Your website makes it very difficult to keep checking on all these variants 465 78 Insertion of 'high quality' before 'improved access' and This could be included. Consider adding the should be for all including vulnerable road users. words 'high quality' before 'improved access' in relevant policies being taken forward in the LDF. Mrs K. Richmond Observations (South Cave Parish Should be more provision for walkers & cyclists These groups are already specifically Council) referred to. 248 91 We agree with policy and hope that it will be adhered Support noted. Carry this general to. approach forward within the LDF. Mrs C. Hird (Snaith Support with Pavements should always be provided on new Pavements are provided where the and Cowick Parish conditions developments standard of the highway requires such Council) facilities, which means that they are not always appropriate on every residential development. Road Safety is never compromised however.

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 186 1022 105 Yes - I fully support TDPD3 but would ask that you Support noted. The comments about Carry this general look more closely at measures to improve safety for road safety, where a road is a designated approach forward within walkers & especially cyclists. Too much heavy cycle route will be passed to relevant the LDF. Where there transport is using (and destroying) local minor roads & officers for further consideration. may be road safety lanes. A good example is route 65, Trans Pennine issues on shared Trail, between South Cave & Broomfleet frequented cycling / HGV routes, by 'dozens' of cyclists, many foreign cyclists, daily. the consider improved number of heavy lorries makes this route very unsafe. signing and Traffic Someone will be killed! Management / Road Safety measures. Refer this issue to relevant officers within the Council. Mr Graham Lenton Support with conditions 306 118 Agree Noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Ms Nicola Salvidge Support (Sigglesthorne CE VC Primary School) 1413 131 Agree, a lot of work needs to be put into developing Noted. Carry this general other road users approach forward within the LDF. Ms Nicola Salvidge Support (Seaton PC) 426 166 No Noted. No specific action required. Mrs M. Barker Other (Swanland Parish Council) 1422 225 Being someone who cycles or catches the bus to work Noted. Buses are given a great deal of No specific action on many occasions, I totally agree that a much higher support by the Council in the LTP process required, but continue priority should be given to issues that involve and will have land protected for new to develop bus vulnerable road users. Also Bus services should be schemes, such as park and ride, through infrastructure as given a much higher priority than at present. this DPD. discussed in the Issues and Options document. Mr Steve Knifton Support (Leconfield Parish Council) 1019 238 This policy should be implemented Support noted. No specific action Transport Development Plan Document Background R eport April 2010 187 required. Miss K. E. Laister Support (Ferriby Conservation Society) 845 252 We support this policy Support noted. No specific action required. Mrs D. E. Franks Support (Paull Parish Council) 527 266 No Noted. No specific action required. Mrs Sally Howlat Other (Seaton Ross Parish Council) 350 281 Include such as horse and rider Horseriders will not normally need to be Bear in mind the needs provided for in most new developments, of horseriders when though if this were to be so, special Traffic Management facilities could be included if really schemes are under necessary. consideration. Mrs K. Soltys Observations (Mappleton Parish Council) 843 296 We support the proposal Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Mrs K. Roe Support (Langtoft Parish Council) 1426 356 No specific comments Noted. No specific action required. George Wimpey Other PLC

1425 Ms Liz Beighton (Spawforths) 1431 370 No specific comments Noted. No specific action required. Miller Strategic Other Land Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 188

1425 Ms Liz Beighton (Spawforths) 1430 384 No specific comments Noted. No specific action required. Mr Cowton Other

1425 Ms Liz Beighton (Spawforths) 1429 395 Positive Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Mr John Winter Support 1432 408 We support the principles of this policy which accords Support noted. Regard would always be Carry this general with government guidance. However, we would stress had to the current policy and legal approach forward within the need for the Council to ensure that any planning framework at the time any commuted the LDF. gain requirements on new development needs to be sums were under consideration. Ms Kathryn Jukes Support with fully justified and directly related to the development. conditions (Carter Jonas LLP) 1433 415 Yorkshire Forward welcomes proposed policies Support noted. Carry this general TDPD3 and TDPD4. Improving the safety, access and approach forward within facilities for vulnerable users, such as pedestrians and the LDF. Mr John Pilgrim Support cyclists is vital if people are to change the way they (Yorkshire Forward) travel. Additionally, supporting sustainable forms of transport, such as bus travel through the improvement of facilities and services will improve the public transport links of rural areas, potentially causing a modal shift away from private car, although the frequency of services will be an influential factor. 863 427 Safety of vulnerable road users must be a priority. If Support noted. Carry this general you are encouraging cycling, walking, etc then to be approach forward within safe on a road which is used by motor vehicles is a the LDF. Ms Samantha Support definite priority. Dunwell (Fridaythorpe Parish Council) 1435 442 No Noted. No specific action

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 189 required. Mrs H Hook Other 1437 456 No comment Noted. No specific action required. Unknown Other (Albanwise Ltd)

1436 Mr Michael O'Connell (Entec UK Ltd) 1153 490 No Noted. No specific action required. Mr Richard Bryan Other 1442 506 Yes we agree with the provision of such things as Support noted. Carry this general cycle tracks approach forward within the LDF. W Buckle Support (Wetwang Parish Council) 1443 531 No Noted. No specific action required. Ms Sarah Watson Other (Sigglesthorne Parish Council) 539 694 Sport England generally supports policy TDPD3 - that Support noted. Carry this general new development give priority for improved access approach forward within and facilities for vulnerable road users such as the LDF. Mr Henryk Support pedestrians and cyclists, and support for sustainable Peterson forms of transport such as bus facilities. (Sport England) 833 713 This policy seems fair but public transport must be Noted and agreed. The cost of public Carry this general affordable to encourage people to abandon car use transport is beyond the Council's direct approach forward within control, though some is subsidised e.g. the LDF. school children and the elderly. Ms H. Harvatt Support with conditions (Hollym Parish Council) 1452 797 Good as far as it goes, but if need for the use of cars True. This Transport DPD is trying to Carry this general was reduced existing roads would be safer for other achieve this. approach forward within Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 190 modes of travel. the LDF. Cllr Winifred I Observations Knight 1464 832 No Noted. No specific action required. Stephanie Marriott Other (Hornsea and District Chamber of Trade) 480 938 No Noted. No specific action required. Mrs J. Other Heathershaw (Hornsea Residents Association) 1474 1224 A good policy, future considerations of any Carry this general developments must take into account the needs of approach forward within vulnerable groups. Support noted. the LDF. Sue Atkins Support with

conditions (Middleton on the Wolds Parish Council) 1502 1531 What about examining the possibility of 'feeder' This is really an operational issue outside Carry this general services from remote settlements to main bus routes? the scope of this DPD, however, the approach forward within Also, is there any possibility of school buses taking Council already runs such feeder services the LDF. J Burnett Observations paying passengers? People will not be encouraged to in some areas, especially for access to (East Cottingwith cycle because of the deplorable state of rural roads, healthcare (eg 'Medibus'). In general, the Parish Council) which are pot holed and extremely dangerous, condition of the rural highway network is particularly when rain makes the depth of pot hole relatively good, though there will always impossible to judge. be some problems somewhere - which are dealt with through maintenance programmes, funded through the LTP. 1482 1598 We would query whether motorcyclists should be "Priority" means, principally, providing Continue to give priority given priority. The only advantage is less congestion parking facilities for motorcycles. The to motorcycles as this as this form of transport is not particularly safe or Council is committed to improving safety mode of travel is sustainable. What does the “giving priority for” mean across the board, but 'powered two particularly vulnerable in practice? wheelers' constitute the most vulnerable and unlikely to reduce group of road users and thus merit special in popularity in the consideration. forseeable future. Mr James Durham Observations Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 191 (Hull City Council) 694 1618 Notwithstanding the policy direction of proposed policy Most of the large schemes listed in the In order to allay such TDPD 3, we might have expected to see a greater Issues and Options Document are for fears, stress even emphasis on public transport and promoting public transport and sustainable travel more, within the LDF, sustainable travel choices given that reducing car choices viz: three Park & Ride schemes, the sustainability of the usage is a key theme of national and regional policy. with the possibility of more, for Hull; a new Council's approach. For example, you refer to ‘the general lack of public passenger railway; a railway station car transport in the East Riding, which in most park and; a rail freight terminal. This circumstances is offering little travel choice to the car’ comment is therefore noted with some (paragraph 6.6) but there is little indication of any disappointment and is puzzling, as the consideration of sustainable travel issues, relying whole of the DPD document and the JSP instead on proposing higher parking standards in the interim Core Strategy, together with RSS market villages and rural areas. and national guidance is actually based on sustainability principles Mr A McIntyre Observations (Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber) 1511 1659 No Noted. No specific action required. Mr Peter Lacy Other 1450 1682 When new developments are being designed the All categories of user are always Carry this general layouts - especially near to main roads - should take considered when any layout is designed. approach forward within account of all road users especially pedestrians & Speed limits and other Traffic the LDF. Continue to cyclists. Management measures can be apply speed limits in introduced only when certain criteria are line with higher level met. This will continue to be the Council's advice. Mrs Val Wood Observations 20 m.p.h. zones in new developments should be approach, in line with higher-level routine. guidance. 20 mph limits are not (Anlaby with Anlaby universally applied to new residential Common Parish areas and public transport accessibility is Council) a key issue that may be strengthened in the LDF. 1516 1716 Agree Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Mr & Mrs S Fletcher Support 1517 1764 Agree in part. Not all developments are able to give Noted - but most can if they are Carry this general priority to more vulnerable road users considered at the outset. approach forward within the LDF. Mr Joseph Support with Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 192 Richardson conditions (Jos Richardson &

Son Ltd) 554 1780 The Agency is supportive of this policy and hopes that The concerns expressed are all Ensure that Transport it would aim to reduce the level of dependency on the components of the JSP which acts as an Assessments, Travel use of the private car for travel. In order that interim Core Strategy, which is based on Plans and other such accessibility by non-car modes is promoted, it needs Accessibility Planning as one of its tools are referred to in to be ensured that the aims of this policy are reflected underlying principles. Transport the LDF, to ensure a elsewhere in other LDF DPD documents, such as the Assessments and Travel Plans will be joined-up approach requirement for development to be located in the most referred to in relevant parts of the LDF. throughout the LDF. Mr Graham Support with suitable land accessible locations, and the Titchener conditions requirement for Transport Assessments and /or Travel (Highways Agency) Plans to be produced for new significant developments. 1518 Mr Ashley Stratford (Halcrow Group Ltd) 498 1797 Natural England supports the policy TDPD3 which Support noted. Carry this general aims to improve facilities for vulnerable roads users approach forward within and public transport within East Riding of Yorkshire. the LDF. Susan Wilson Support (English Nature - North & East Yorkshire Team) 1520 1812 Motorcyclists should be treated no different than car This echoes other comments and is Retain motorcyclists in drivers, do not reduce road widths for cycle lanes noted, but motorcyclists are, statistically, the list of vulnerable the most vulnerable group of road users. road users and apply policies to them as appropriate Mr John Ledger Observations 1514 1821 Hedon Town Council concurs with this aspect of the Support is noted. Signage is only Carry this general Plan. Many of the out of town roads on the East provided where it is necessary. approach forward within Riding lack dedicated footpaths or cycle tracks. Sometimes it is unsightly but this may be the LDF. Anything which will improve the level of such provision worthwhile where accidents are reduced is to be welcomed. In also welcoming the attention to as a result. Specific instances of improved road safety a note of caution must be hazardous signs should be notified to use sounded about proliferation of road signs. These not separately in the normal way. Hedon Town Support with only become an unsightly clutter, but because there Council conditions are so many they are difficult for motorists and others (Hedon Town to see and read. In a number of instances we have Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 193 Council) noted that they cause a hazard for pedestrians. 970 1830 We welcome the commitment to providing improved Such contributions would be required Ensure that the access for vulnerable road users. However, we where they are identified through guidelines for requiring believe that TDPD3 should go further, and establish a Transport Assessments - which most Transport Assessments targeted and strategic approach to improving public major new developments would require. and developer transport through new development. Major new The manner in which they could be spent contributions that result development should be expected to contribute to would be in accord with further SPD and from them are clearly improved levels of public transport appropriate to the higher level guidance. set out in the LDF. increased transport demands it creates, rather than merely to ‘support’ sustainable transport initiatives. Mr Martin Kerby Support with Furthermore, TDPD3 should extend beyond policy This concept is agreed and LTP2 does go Ensure that commuted (RSPB Northern conditions that relates to new development and aim to improve beyond new development to deal with sums are spent on the England Region) the existing public transport infrastructure across the existing situations. However, where new most appropriate East Riding, particularly where current shortfalls in development is involved, this DPD will set projects. For transport provision, or where particular problems (e.g. out what we expect to see as a result of it, matters they may be congestion hotspots) exist. The Council should particularly in relation to design and/or best used other than in identify existing or future public transport initiatives any financial contributions. In any event, the parish of origin, that address these problems, and facilitate the most of the large schemes listed in the which may require an progress of these schemes through ambitious and Issues and Options Document are for amendment to the robust policies. public transport and/or sustainable travel guidelines for using choices, viz: 3 Park & Ride schemes, with commuted sums the possibility of more for Hull; a new passenger railway; a railway station car park and; a rail freight terminal that would help remove freight traffic from the road network, thus improving conditions for public transport and other vehicles. Care has to be taken, however, to make sure that commuted sums are appropriate in terms of their magnitude and the way in which they are spent - which must be in line with higher level requirements. It should also be borne in mind that improvements as a result of new developments will probably improve the situation for existing residents too. The creation of an integrated network of high-quality Cycle and pedestrian facilities are already In order to allay such cycle-ways and pedestrian walkways in built-up areas a component of our LTP work. Much fears, stress even more can have a significant impact on the quality of life and work has been done already and this will within the LDF, the health of inhabitants, particularly where these routes continue, as suggested. sustainability of the are within high-quality green space. We encourage Council's approach.

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 194 the Council to develop such networks as a means of addressing congestion and vulnerable user issues, and also areas of poor overall health and low exercise. 1521 1846 Generally we support this policy, this can only be Support noted. There is regular liaison Carry this general implemented if the provision of bus or train services with public transport operators over levels approach forward within are improved or at least maintained, how would the of service and various initiatives have the LDF. Mr Douglas E Support with council link this into the their transport strategy. The been developed and paid for. This DPD Kendall conditions walk to work provision should be supported with the suggested protecting land for major public (North Cave Parish provision of safe footpaths. transport schemes. Council) 1475 1860 Many residents in Goole on our most recent sites Speed limits and other Traffic Carry this general have asked for this 20MPH and complained about Managanement measures can be approach forward within speeding around the site where children play. introduced only when certain criteria are the LDF.. Continue to met. This will continue to be the Council's apply speed limits in approach, in line with higher-level line with higher level guidance. 20 mph limits are not advice. Jean Kitchen Observations universally applied to new residential 20MPH limits on new developments areas as a matter of course. 252 1908 What sort of ''support'' is envisaged? Would it be Noted. Support for rail is already Include specific employment policies such as loans for staff season provided for example better platform reference to rail, as well tickets? Support for rail should be specifically accessibility, cycle stores, etc. Mention of as to buses, within mentioned. rail should have been made, however, in relevant LDF policies. policy TDPD3. Mr T Ross Observations (Hull and East Riding Rail Users Association) 1472 1919 The LAF supports the proposed policy. The LAF Support noted. The LAF's assistance Carry this general would be happy to advise on how to provide improved would always be welcome at the relevant approach forward within access and facilities for vulnerable road users. Parish stage. the LDF. Jennifer Aird Support with Councils may also be able to give local evidence of conditions priorities for improvements. (East Riding of Yorkshire & Kingston Upon Hull Joint Local Access Forum) 484 1933 No Noted. No specific action required. Mrs Jean Mayland Other Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 195 (Barmston & Fraisthorpe Parish Council) 483 1945 Proposed Policy TDPD 3 is welcomed as it Support noted. Carry this general encourages reducing travel demand and encourages approach forward within a modal shift to more sustainable modes of transport. the LDF. Jenny Poxon Support (Yorkshire and

Humber Assembly) 1523 1960 No. Agree with principal Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Julie Abraham Support 427 1974 Agree Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Mrs M. Barker Support (North Ferriby

Parish Council) 1528 2003 Yes - policy should be proportiaonal to model use Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Mr Ian Pitcher Observations (Melbourne Parish Council) 838 2038 Sounds a really worthwhile policy Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Mrs D. Beare Support (Hook Parish Council)

Question T12 266 27 We would support this. Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Mr Philip Taylor Support (Minsters Rail Campaign)

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 196 569 42 Use of initials. This leaves too much investigation for This is noted and understood. Avoid the use of initials, an ordinary member of the public to ?????? I have acronyms etc in already spent hours trying to read the plan finding subsequent documents what all the initials mean again & again make it whenever possible. Christine A Brown Observations harder. Your website makes it very difficult to keep

checking on all these variants 465 79 Insertion of 'minimum' before 'latest best practice' and Insertion of 'minimum' into the policy is Add motorcyclists to the to include motor cyclists on list of vulnerable road probably not necessary, as design would list of vulnerable road users usually be in line with best practice. users within relevant Motorcyclists are the most vulnerable LDF policies. group of road users and their safety is given high priority in the Council's Comprehensive Road Safety Strategy. Mrs K. Richmond Observations (South Cave Parish Council) 248 92 We agree with policy Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Mrs C. Hird Support (Snaith and Cowick Parish Council) 1022 106 Fully support Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Mr Graham Lenton Support 306 119 Increasing Road Safety needs to be high on the The Council puts a lot of effort into Carry this general agenda. A lot of effort is put into teaching school age training both in schools and later on - for approach forward within children. I believe more needs to be done to teach example cycle training and speed the LDF. Adults, also that those teaching Road Safety take seminars. This is, however, largely additional training, possibly with the police, so that the beyond the scope of the LDF. correct information is given. Ms Nicola Salvidge Observations (Sigglesthorne CE Cycle training should be free to all, children and adults Pedestrian and cycle training is free at No specific further VC Primary School) school, but adult road safety training action required as a tends to be charged-for. The main type of result of this comment. adult training that is given is at 'Road Aware' Speed Seminars, which are offered to motorists following speeding incidents and there is a charge for these, which are run by the local safety Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 197 partnership. The Council will continue to work in partnership with the police to improve road safety for all users. 1413 132 Strongly agree, road safety needs to be given high The Council puts a lot of effort into Carry this general priority, also those teaching road safety should be training both in schools and later on - for approach forward within trained to a higher standard than they are at present example cycle training and speed the LDF. seminars. This is, however, largely beyond the scope of the LDF, but it should be noted that instructors are all trained to national standards. Ms Nicola Salvidge Support with conditions (Seaton PC) 426 167 Yes. We consider that paragraph 8.8 of the discussion Noted. School transport is a major cause Carry this general paper should take into account the number of vehicles of travel and is, as requested, already approach forward within kept under constant review. the LDF. Mrs M. Barker Observations (Swanland Parish Council) 1422 226 I am in total agreement with policy TDPD4 Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Mr Steve Knifton Support (Leconfield Parish Council) 1019 239 This is a necessary policy Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Miss K. E. Laister Support (Ferriby Conservation Society) 845 253 We support this policy Support noted. Carry this general Mrs D. E. Franks Support approach forward within (Paull Parish the LDF. Council) 527 267 No Noted. No specific action required. Mrs Sally Howlat Other (Seaton Ross

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 198 Parish Council) 350 282 Include horse and rider, motorcyclists Whilst this concern is noted, these two Add motorcyclists to the groups are difficult to design for - in the list of vulnerable road sense of designing-in special roads, paths users within relevant etc. Their safety depends perhaps more LDF policies, but do not on driver behaviour, which is rather add horse riders as it is beyond the scope for the LDF. not reasonable to Motorcyclists are the most vulnerable require specialist group of road users and their safety is facilities for them on given high priority in the Council's most forms of new Comprehensive Road Safety Strategy development that are not specifically for equine activities. Mrs K. Soltys Observations (Mappleton Parish Council) 843 297 Safety is paramount at all times Agreed. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Mrs K. Roe Observations (Langtoft Parish Council) 1426 357 No specific comments Noted. No specific action required. George Wimpey Other PLC

1425 Ms Liz Beighton (Spawforths)

1431 371 No specific comments Noted. No specific action required. Miller Strategic Other Land

1425 Ms Liz Beighton (Spawforths) 1430 385 No specific comments Noted. No specific action required. Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 199 Mr Cowton Other

1425 Ms Liz Beighton (Spawforths) 1429 396 Positive Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Mr John Winter Support 1433 416 Yorkshire Forward welcomes proposed policies Support noted. Carry this general TDPD3 and TDPD4. Improving the safety, access and approach forward within facilities for vulnerable users, such as pedestrians and the LDF. Mr John Pilgrim Support with cyclists is vital if people are to change the way they conditions travel. Additionally, supporting sustainable forms of (Yorkshire Forward) transport, such as bus travel through the improvement of facilities and services will improve the public transport links of rural areas, potentially causing a modal shift away from private car, although the frequency of services will be an influential factor 1435 443 No Noted. No specific action required. Mrs H Hook Other 1437 457 No comment Noted. No specific action required. Unknown Other (Albanwise Ltd)

1436 Mr Michael O'Connell (Entec UK Ltd) 1153 491 No Noted. No specific action required. Mr Richard Bryan Other 1442 507 Yes we agree Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. W Buckle Support (Wetwang Parish Council)

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 200 1443 533 No Noted. No specific action required. Ms Sarah Watson Other (Sigglesthorne Parish Council) 1452 754 Good Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Cllr Winifred I Support

Knight 1464 834 No Noted. No specific action required. Stephanie Marriott Other (Hornsea and District Chamber of Trade) 480 939 No Noted. No specific action required. Mrs J. Other

Heathershaw (Hornsea Residents Association) 1474 1229 A good policy this standard should be expected. Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Sue Atkins Support (Middleton on the Wolds Parish Council) 1502 1533 I am frankly amazed that development does not Development does have to be safe Carry this general already have a requirement to incorporate road safety already! The Transport DPD was a new approach forward within measures, This should be a normal requirement, not a document, therefore, it had to deal afresh the LDF. novel idea. with everything relating to the Planning/Spatial aspects of Transport, including matters that have always been covered, but which now needed to be reiterated in a new document. J Burnett Support (East Cottingwith Parish Council) 1482 1599 No Comment. Noted. No specific action Transport Development Plan Document Background R eport April 2010 201 required. Mr James Durham Other (Hull City Council) 1511 1660 No Noted. No specific action required. Mr Peter Lacy Other 1450 1684 When new developments are being designed the All categories of user are always Carry this general layouts - especially near to main roads - should take considered when any layout is designed. approach forward within account of all road users esp pedestrians & cyclists. the LDF. Mrs Val Wood Observations 20 m.p.h. zones in new developments should be Speed limits and other Traffic Continue to apply (Anlaby with Anlaby routine. Management measures can be speed limits in line with Common Parish introduced only when certain criteria are higher level advice. Council) met. This will continue to be the Council's approach, in line with higher-level guidance. 20 mph limits are not universally applied to new residential areas and public transport accessibility is a key issue that may be strengthened in developing the LDF. 1516 1717 Agree Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Mr & Mrs S Fletcher Support 1517 1765 Agree. As long as the requirements of best practice Support noted. Carry this general standards are not overtly onerous approach forward within the LDF. Mr Joseph Support with Richardson conditions (Jos Richardson & Son Ltd) 554 1781 The Agency is supportive of this policy and would Support noted. The Highways Agency Carry this general confirm that it requires adequate consideration of the will continue to be consulted on approach forward within safety impacts of proposals on the strategic highway appropriate schemes, as it is now. the LDF. Mr Graham Support with network within supporting Transport Assessments / Titchener conditions Transport Statements. This is in order to support the (Highways Agency) aim of the Agency of providing a safe and efficient network. 1518 Mr Ashley Stratford (Halcrow Group Ltd) Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 202 1520 1813 Protected areas should be created without reducing Safety measures would always be in line Carry this general road widths with current standards, which may on approach forward within occasion require narrower carriageways. the LDF. Mr John Ledger Observations 1514 1822 Hedon Town Council concurs with this aspect of the Support is noted. Signage is only Carry this general Plan. Many of the out of town roads on the East provided where it is necessary. It is approach forward within Riding lack dedicated footpaths or cycle tracks. agreed that, sometimes, it is unsightly but the LDF. Contact the Anything which will improve the level of such provision this may be worthwhile where accidents Town Council to is to be welcomed. In also welcoming the attention to are reduced as a result. Specific ascertain the locations improved road safety a note of caution must be instances of hazardous signs should be of dangerous signs, so sounded about proliferation of road signs. These not notified to the Council separately in the that remedial measures only become an unsightly clutter, but because there normal way, so that they can be dealt may be undertaken. are so many they are difficult for motorists and others with. Hedon Town Support with to see and read. In a number of instances we have Council conditions noted that they cause a hazard for pedestrians. (Hedon Town Council) 970 1831 We support the intentions behind TDPD4, but Cycle and pedestrian facilities are already Carry this general encourage the Council to develop a strategic and a component of our LTP work. Much approach forward within spatial policy to ensure that developments improve work has been done already and this will the LDF. and create new routes for vulnerable users in an continue, as suggested. Mr Martin Kerby Support with integrated manner. Again, the creation of an conditions integrated network of high-quality cycleways and (RSPB Northern pedestrian walkways in built-up areas would have a England Region) significant impact on the quality of life and health of inhabitants, particularly where these routes are within high-quality green space – we encourage the Council to develop such an approach in appropriate locations. 1521 1847 We support this policy and would expect that this type Noted. It is already in place, as expected, Carry this general of aim should already be in place. but has to be reiterated in this new approach forward within document. the LDF. Mr Douglas E Support Kendall (North Cave Parish Council) 1475 1861 New housing estates have usually narrow roads Such schemes are designed to have low Carry this general sometimes no pavements and cul de sacs where vehicles speeds built-in, so as to make approach forward within children play, all these areas should have 20MPH limit them safe. Developments will always be the LDF. on entering and some shallow traffic calming. designed with safety as a paramount consideration. Jean Kitchen Observations Speed limits and other Traffic Continue to apply Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 203 Management measures can be speed limits in line with introduced only when certain criteria are higher level advice. met. This will continue to be the Council's approach, in line with higher-level guidance. 20 mph limits are not universally applied to new residential areas and public transport accessibility is a key issue being strengthened in developing the LDF. 252 1909 We support this policy. Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Mr T Ross Support (Hull and East Riding Rail Users Association) 1472 1920 The LAF supports the policy, and would welcome the Support noted. The LAF's assistance Carry this general chance to give detailed comments on specific safety would always be welcome at the relevant approach forward within measures. stage. the LDF. Jennifer Aird Support with conditions (East Riding of Yorkshire & Kingston Upon Hull Joint Local Access Forum) 484 1934 No Noted. No specific action required. Mrs Jean Mayland Other (Barmston & Fraisthorpe Parish Council) 484 1935 No Noted. No specific action required. Mrs Jean Mayland Other (Barmston & Fraisthorpe Parish Council) 1523 1961 No. Agree with principal Noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 204 Julie Abraham Support 427 1975 Agree Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Mrs M. Barker Support (North Ferriby Parish Council) 1528 2004 No comment Noted. No specific action required. Mr Ian Pitcher Other (Melbourne Parish Council) 838 2039 Sensible Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Mrs D. Beare Support (Hook Parish Council)

Question T13 266 28 Its a good idea. Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Mr Philip Taylor Support (Minsters Rail Campaign) 569 43 It is very necessary Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Christine A Brown Support 248 93 We agree with the policy Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Mrs C. Hird Support (Snaith and Cowick Parish Council) 1022 107 Essential Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Mr Graham Lenton Support

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 205 306 120 Agree that regular audits need to take place Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Ms Nicola Salvidge Support (Sigglesthorne CE VC Primary School) 1413 133 Yes, road safety needs constant updating and training Support noted. The Council puts a lot of Carry this general for those who promote it. And those using the roads effort into training both in schools and approach forward within also need to be monitored later on - for example cycle training and the LDF. speed seminars. This is, however, largely beyond the scope of the LDF. Ms Nicola Salvidge Support with conditions (Seaton PC) 426 168 No Noted. No specific action required. Mrs M. Barker Other (Swanland Parish Council) 1422 227 An audit needs to be taken to see what steps need to This is taken as agreement with the Carry this general be taken. requirement to improve road safety and approach forward within for any necessary audit(s). the LDF. Mr Steve Knifton Observations (Leconfield Parish Council) 1019 240 We agree with such a requirement Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Miss K. E. Laister Support (Ferriby Conservation Society) 845 254 We support the proposed requirement Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Mrs D. E. Franks Support (Paull Parish Council) 527 268 No Noted. No specific action required.

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 206 Mrs Sally Howlat Other (Seaton Ross Parish Council) 350 283 Seems a good idea Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Mrs K. Soltys Support (Mappleton Parish Council) 608 313 We agree that there should be road safety audits in Support noted. Carry this general market villages like Beeford approach forward within the LDF. Mrs Rosalind Support with Turner conditions (Beeford Parish Council) 1426 358 No specific comments Noted. No specific action required. George Wimpey Other PLC

1425 Ms Liz Beighton (Spawforths) 1431 372 No specific comments Noted. No specific action required. Miller Strategic Other Land

1425 Ms Liz Beighton (Spawforths) 1430 386 No specific comments Noted. No specific action required. Mr Cowton Other

1425 Ms Liz Beighton (Spawforths) 1429 397 No comments Noted. No specific action

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 207 required. Mr John Winter Other 1432 409 We consider this requirement inappropriate and This objection is noted. Such a Carry this general unreasonable. It will be difficult to implement, time requirement may be all these things, but approach forward within consuming, bureaucratic and will discourage is highly unlikely to stop developers from the LDF. developers from bringing sites forward for bringing sites forward. Ms Kathryn Jukes Other development. (Carter Jonas LLP) 1435 444 No Noted. No specific action required. Mrs H Hook Other 1437 458 No comment Noted. No specific action required. Unknown Other (Albanwise Ltd)

1436 Mr Michael O'Connell (Entec UK Ltd) 1153 492 Yes I totally agree with these proposals Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Mr Richard Bryan Support 1442 508 Yes in principle but not to the extent that the whole Qualified support noted. Carry this general system becomes top heavy approach forward within the LDF. W Buckle Support with conditions (Wetwang Parish Council) 1443 535 No Noted. No specific action required. Ms Sarah Watson Other (Sigglesthorne Parish Council) 1452 798 No comment. Noted. No specific action required. Cllr Winifred I Other Knight

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 208 1464 838 Would have liked to see the threshold spelled out - Any threshold for the level of development Ensure that clear hope it is on the low side. requiring any such audits would be set out thresholds for any in the LDF. supplementary studies in connection with planning applications or development schemes are clearly indicated in the LDF. Stephanie Marriott Observations (Hornsea and District Chamber of Trade) 480 940 Highly important. Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Mrs J. Support Heathershaw (Hornsea Residents Association) 1474 1232 Yes absolutely. Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Sue Atkins Support (Middleton on the Wolds Parish Council) 1502 1538 What on earth is it hoped to achieve by a road safety Hopefully, safer travel would be achieved. Carry this general audit? Repair the roads and ensure road side verges The measures suggested are useful approach forward within are cut - particularly on corners - to allow visibility. components of a Road Safety Strategy as the LDF. Simple, cheap and effective. long as they do not lead to higher speeds, which is often a component of road traffic accidents. J Burnett Observations (East Cottingwith Parish Council) 1482 1600 We have no problem with the requirement but the Noted. A Road Safety Audit is a formal, Carry this general difference between a ‘safety audit’ and a ‘user audit’ systematic process that looks at highway approach forward within needs to be explained more fully. schemes to: ensure they operate as the LDF. Where safely as practicable; minimise accident relevant clarify the numbers and severity; consider the safety differences between a of all users; improve the awareness of ‘safety audit’ and a Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 209 safety design practices of all staff involved ‘user audit’. in the scheme's introduction. The road Safety Audit would normally include a Road User Audit to establish who might use the scheme, or who might be affected by it, so that appropriate safety features can be designed in to it to take account of such needs. Mr James Durham Observations (Hull City Council) 1511 1661 No Noted. No specific action required. Mr Peter Lacy Other 1450 1685 When new developments are being designed the All categories of user are always Carry this general layouts - especially near to main roads - should take considered when any layout is designed. approach forward within account of all road users esp pedestrians & cyclists. Speed limits and other Traffic the LDF. Management measures can be introduced only when certain criteria are met. This will continue to be the Council's approach, in line with higher-level guidance. Mrs Val Wood Observations 20 m.p.h. zones in new developments should be 20 mph limits are not universally applied Continue to apply routine. to new residential areas. speed limits in line with higher level advice. (Anlaby with Anlaby Common Parish Council) 1516 1718 This is a reasonable idea provided that all concerned Support noted. All relevant bodies are Carry this general are approached and consulted consulted - including neighbours at the approach forward within planning application stage. the LDF. Mr & Mrs S Fletcher Support with conditions 1517 1766 Is this not an unnecessary requirement because In this new document, we need to restate Carry this general Highways statements to support planning already deal some things where they are to be carried approach forward within with this issue? forward from earlier policy documents. the LDF. Mr Joseph Observations Richardson (Jos Richardson & Son Ltd) 554 1782 The Agency is supportive of this policy and would Support noted. The Highways Agency is Carry this general confirm that it requires adequate consideration of the already (and will continue to be) consulted approach forward within Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 210 safety impacts of proposals on the strategic highway on relevant cases. the LDF. Mr Graham Support with network within supporting Transport Assessments / Titchener conditions Transport Statements. This is in order to support the (Highways Agency) aim of the Agency of providing a safe and efficient network. 1518 Mr Ashley Stratford (Halcrow Group Ltd) 1520 1814 As long as traffic is kept moving Noted. This is one of the Council's Carry this general statutory duties. approach forward within the LDF. Mr John Ledger Observations 1514 1823 The Town Council welcomes the proposal to have a Support noted. Carry this general road safety audit in connection with new approach forward within developments. In the view of this Council there should the LDF. Hedon Town Support with also always be a road user audit as we feel that Council conditions information on levels and users of roads provides vital (Hedon Town information in connection with road safety Council) requirements. 970 1832 We support this requirement. Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Mr Martin Kerby Support (RSPB Northern England Region) 1521 1848 Again this strategy is fine if it is policed and Any threshold for the level of development Ensure that thresholds implemented in a consistent manner, all applications requiring any such assessments would be for any supplementary above a certain size should have as a minimum a set out in the LDF. studies in connection traffic impact assessment and an environmental with planning impact assessment. applications or development schemes are clearly indicated in the LDF. Mr Douglas E Support with Kendall conditions (North Cave Parish Council) 1475 1862 ERYC policy is for NO stop lines on estate roads - this Estate roads are designed for low traffic Carry this general is wrong - we should use any precaution we can. If speeds, so as to make them safe. approach forward within these lines are not in place drivers do not stop. Developments will always be designed the LDF. Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 211 with safety as the prime consideration. 'Stop' lines would be included if technically needed. Jean Kitchen Observations 252 1910 We support this policy. Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Mr T Ross Support (Hull and East Riding Rail Users Association) 1472 1921 The LAF supports the proposed requirement, and Support noted. The LAF's assistance Carry this general would ask to be consulted on any future road user would always be welcome at the relevant approach forward within audits when appropriate. stage. the LDF. Jennifer Aird Support with conditions (East Riding of Yorkshire & Kingston Upon Hull Joint Local Access Forum) 484 1936 No Noted. No specific action required. Mrs Jean Mayland Other (Barmston & Fraisthorpe Parish Council) 1523 1962 No. Agree with principal Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Julie Abraham Support 427 1976 Yes Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Mrs M. Barker Other (North Ferriby Parish Council) 1528 2005 Absolutely essential Support noted. Carry this general approach forward within the LDF. Mr Ian Pitcher Support Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 212 (Melbourne Parish Council) 838 2040 If this has not been part of procedures before now Support noted. Carry this general then it seems a worthwhile, even necessary, part of approach forward within any development. the LDF. Mrs D. Beare Support (Hook Parish Council)

Appendix 1 1482 1557 The eastern relief road from Ganstead Lane to Hedon This is noted. It would appear that much Remove protection for Road is not currently being actively pursued however of the existing protection could be the Eastern Relief Road the route is mostly protected by ‘countryside policies’ removed, but we need to agree (with the around Hull but in the East Riding. Land may still be protected in City Council) which land needs to be consider protecting land Hull’s LDF in order to maintain access to land north of protected, both for the road scheme and for a new Park and Somerden Road. Land adjacent to Asda near Bilton for a Park & Ride facility. Ride site near Bilton in could potentially be required for a park and ride site the LDF as requested before 2021, so it still needs protecting. by Hull City Council. Mr James Durham Observations (Hull City Council) 1482 1562 Some of the land protected for the Saltend to Hedon This is noted. It would appear that much Remove protection for By-pass scheme under the Holderness District Wide of the existing protection could be the Saltend to Hedon Local Plan may be required for an east Hull park and removed, but we need to agree (with the road scheme but ride scheme north or south of the A1033 adjacent to City Council) which land needs to be protect land for a new the west end of Hedon bypass. protected for a Park & Ride facility. Park and Ride site near Hedon in the LDF as requested by Hull City Council. Mr James Durham Observations (Hull City Council) 1482 1572 No land is anticipated to be required in the East Noted. Remove any reference Riding for the Hedon Road, Salt End to City Centre to the Hedon Road, Bus Priority Scheme. Salt End to City Centre Bus Priority Scheme scheme from the LDF as no land in the East Riding will be required. Mr James Durham Observations (Hull City Council)

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 213 Appendix 2 589 140 I have looked briefly at Appendix 2 of Transport policy This is a valid comment. Ensure that all land to - only to find the maps contain no information as to be protected is very where they might be located, or even to North - I clearly shown on maps assume that is at the top of map, but despite my good and is identifiable by all knowledge of canalside, the Goole inter-modal site is who consult them. Enid Thompson Observations still difficult to place within context. 1482 1579 The park and ride element of the Beverley Integrated This is a valid comment. Identify, on the Transport Plan should be shown on the plan on page Proposals Map, the 32. preferred site for a Park and Ride site to the south of Beverley as part of the Beverley Integrated Transport Plan Mr James Durham Observations (Hull City Council)

Sustainability Appraisal 569 44 Sa1. Preservation, repair and replanting of Currently listed as a Potential Indicator for The landscape impacts hedgerows seems to be poor in this area in LTP2 SEA Listed as a LTP2 SEA of transport proposals comparison with other regions of England I have lived Objective No. 4 (To protect and enhance will be an issue covered in. the character of the landscape and in the LDF. minimise adverse development in particularly sensitive areas). Also, listed as an LDF SEA/SA Objective. The Council has powers to control the removal of hedgerows under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997 and to consider dealing with proposals for development. These regulations are complex but only apply to hedgerows adjoining agricultural grazing, common land or nature sites. Regulations can affect relatively minor proposals to remove a hedgerow eg. creation of a new access road. Christine A Brown Observations The routeing of major roads from the docks through This is an issue for Hull City Council but This Council will the centre of Hull is a major failure. Other ports eg. they acknowledge these problems in their support Hull City Southampton, have a town bypass with feeder roads Second Local Transport Plan document Council by encouraging to docks. Hull seizes up now on a daily basis - it will 2006-2011. Short, medium and long-term the transport of freight

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 214 get even worse without a major plan to either fly-over solutions to the problems of congestion, by methods other than the city centre from Clive Sullivan Way to the docks severance, air quality and road safety on by road (eg. by water OR a bypass round the city which is mandatory for Castle Street are a major consideration and rail) so that cross- through traffic. for the City Council, which wants to city road use can be regenerate the City Centre and the port. reduced. It will carry Hull City Council's (HCC) LTP2 - 'A63 this general approach Trunk Road to M62 scheme' identified forward within the LDF. and endorsed by the Secretary of State for Transport following the Hull Multi Modal Study (HUMMS) and included as priorities in the Regional Spatial Strategy and in the Northern Way Action Plan. HCC will provide support to the Highways Agency to ensure a scheme for the A63 Castle Street is delivered. The solutions have evolved from the HUMMS approved by the SOS in June 2003. HCC is working with railway companies and other regional partners to improve track and signalling on the freight railway that links Hull Docks to the national network, which will allow more freight to travel to/from the Docks by rail. 1413 134 Sa 1 - none Noted No specific action Ms Nicola Salvidge Other required (Seaton PC) 1414 138 Planning Obligations Mr Alexander Observations Bateman (The Planning All developers are aware that if their development is Most development is likely to involve We plan to cover the Bureau Ltd) likely to have an impact, they will have to enter into a traffic movement of one sort or another issue of developer Section 106 Agreement with the Council to provide but the point is acknowledged, even contributions within the means with which to lessen this impact. This should though traffic reductions due to new LDF as part of the Core be no different in the aspect of transport; however, I development are thought to be unlikely. Strategy and SPD/CIL am a little concerned over the wording. What I would charging schedule. like to highlight is that a developer should only have to contribute towards improving something that their development is likely to have an impact upon. If their development was to reduce the number of cars on the road, then they would not have to contribute towards improving the road network, yet they may have to

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 215 contribute towards improving the bus network. All I expect to see, is some clarity on what the Council is likely to seek, not only financially but also examples of things that the money will be put towards.

Conclusion As you can see from the comments above, the rest of Support noted No specific action the document seems to be satisfactory, but I do feel required. that these important factors need to be addressed 539 142 It is noted that the transport DPD is to support the Council's LDF Core Strategy and is to : Mr Henryk Observations Peterson (Sport England) ·place most emphasis on main urban area and towns - Noted No specific action i.e. to match the planned growth of the 3 main required settlement types- to be complemented by seeking a reduction in the need to travel locating development close to services

· apply conditions on planning applications to develop Noted No specific action land which address transport provision; also that the required application process seek developer contributions to mitigate impact of development

·protect land for future transport use e.g. relief roads, Noted No specific action pedestrian cycle ways required

·de-allocate land previously planned for transport use Noted No specific action where longer required required

·support integrated transport plans Noted No specific action required

· provide for multi modal terminals Noted No specific action required

· and provide new car parking provision at specified Noted No specific action railway stations e. g Brough required 426 169 Sa1 The Council must listen to the comments The density of development in recent Consider the effects of Mrs M. Barker Observations expressed by Parish Councils and others on the social years has followed Government and land use allocations in (Swanland Parish and environmental issues linked with motor cars and Regional Assembly guidance and will the LDF, but consider

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 216 Council) new developments. As a result of the policy of continue to do so, bearing in mind local adopting relatively selected settlements, considerable development has circumstances. The emphasis on new generous car parking taken place which was not sustainable without the use development largely taking place in standards, as set out in of the motor car. Executive type development tends to service centres is designed to allow RSS, that are produce two cars per house. As a result, village roads access to facilities by modes other than appropriate to a are congested and there is little or no space for the private car, though appropriate relatively rural, parking near shops etc. The effect of allowing 5 parking standards will be proposed. Also, dispersed area such as properties per 0.6 acre on redeveloped land as a it should be noted that 5 the East Riding. Carry result of the PPG3 definition of a brownfield site properties/dwellings per 0.6 acres is a this general approach exacerbates the traffic problems in villages as well as rather low density, equating to only about forward within the LDF. destroying the character and the environment. 20 dwellings per hectare, when the target should be in the region of 30 dpa - depending on local circumstances. 563 211 The Council agree with the proposals set out in the Support noted No specific action Mr Geoff Hall Support document required, but carry the (Walkington Parish general approach of the Council) Issues and Options document through further development of the LDF. 1019 241 Sa1 The Social, Economic and Environmental issues Support noted. These are all important Bear in mind the need which are listed are all important. As a Conservation issues and any transport proposals would to refer to mitigation Society we are especially interested in protecting and be expected to take them into account. measures in relevant enhancing biodiversity and important wildlife habitats, policies within the LDF. Miss K. E. Laister Support protecting and enhancing heritage assets and their (Ferriby settings as well as the countryside and landscape Conservation quality. Also, the importance of reducing the growth of Society) road traffic (by provision of more local services etc). 845 255 Sa1 Rural villages must be treated fairly All settlements will be treated fairly Comments noted. Mrs D. E. Franks Observations although, inevitably, they will not all be Issues surrounding (Paull Parish treated the same. smaller villages should Council) be addressed in the emerging Core Strategy. 527 269 Sa1 No comment Noted No specific action Mrs Sally Howlat Other required (Seaton Ross Parish Council) 1426 359 Sa1 No specific comments Noted No specific action required 1425 Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 217 Ms Liz Beighton (Spawforths) 1431 373 Sa1 No specific comments Noted No specific action Miller Strategic Other required Land 1425 Ms Liz Beighton (Spawforths) 1430 387 Sa1 No specific comments Noted No specific action Mr Cowton Other required 1425 Ms Liz Beighton (Spawforths) 1429 398 Sa1 No comment Noted No specific action Mr John Winter Other required 1432 400 GENERAL COMMENTS Ms Kathryn Jukes Observations (Carter Jonas LLP) We are concerned that it is inappropriate to progress The JSP for Hull and the East Riding A new Core Strategy the Transport Development Plan Document when the constitutes the interim Core Strategy of for the LDF (to replace Council has not yet formulated the Core Strategy. The the LDF and is a 'saved document' for the JSP) is being Core Strategy DPD is a key document in the LDF that reason. It is a new document, developed in line with since it will set out a Vision of what East Riding should prepared with much public consultation, the Local Development look like at the end of the LDF period, and the but it is recognised that it will eventually Scheme. mechanisms for how the Vision will be realised. As be superseded as a new core strategy is such it should be prepared first. We feel that without being developed specifically for the LDF. having first agreed its Core Strategy the Council This approach has been accepted by the cannot realistically develop its policy approach Government Office for Yorkshire and the towards transport issues. Any decisions would be Humber (GOYH). premature and based on an insufficient evidence base. The transport options for the District and how they might contribute to the spatial development of the District need to be considered thoroughly and holistically. They should have regard to the overall Vision for the District and not be considered in isolation.

We note in paragraph 2.1 the Council states ‘The It is not considered that paragraph 2.1 is A new Core Strategy Joint Structure Plan (JSP) is our Core Strategy for the misleading. See box above this one for for the LDF (to replace East Riding.’ Under the new system the JSP is not a explanation. the JSP) is being statutory document and therefore the Council needs developed in line with to transfer the policies within that document into its the Local Development Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 218 own Core Strategy and to give full justification for the Scheme. reasons for doing so. We consider that the statement set out under paragraph 2.1 is misleading.

The Council has given significant weight to the JSP The JSP is a new plan, based on the Need to use the policy which appears to be the basis for developing the evolving Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS), approach as set out in policy approach for the Transport DPD. In doing so, with which it is not at odds. This the adopted RSS. the Council has fudged the issue of having to address approach has been accepted by the more fundamental issues through the development of GOYH. Any necessary alterations to the a Core Strategy and has taken insufficient account of Transport DPD as a result of the final emerging RSS. It is an approach which we consider to report into the RSS Public Examination be unsustainable and unsound. Good practice would will have been made. be for the Council to commence work on the Core Strategy and include within this the approach towards transport.

Objection Without the existence of a Core Strategy it is It is not accepted that this approach was A new Core Strategy impossible to properly consider the issues and options unsound. It would waste years of for the LDF (to replace relating to transport matters. There is no context expensive work on the JSP if that plan the JSP) is being against which to assess the options and how they will were to be abandoned at this stage in developed in line with contribute to delivering the overall Vision for the order to prepare a new core strategy that the Local Development District. We therefore consider that the overall is likely to say much the same thing - Scheme. The Transport approach is fundamentally flawed and unsound. whilst simultaneously slowing the whole DPD is not now being LDF process. Not withstanding our progressed and instead defence of this approach above. the issues it would have Following lessons learned from the covered are now being examination of Core Strategies around progressed via the the Country, that suggest the JSP may Core Strategy, not perform more detailed functions Allocations DPD, and expected of it, the Council has now Supplementary restructured its LDF to prioritise the Planning Documents. production of a new Core Strategy. This will incorporate important aspects of the transport DPD such as transport schemes to facilitate and protect, and parking standards. Other elements of the DPD are being progressed via the Allocations DPD and various Supplementary Planning Documents. Notwithstanding our serious reservations our comments specific to the Transport DPD are set out

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 219 below. (NB these are in the appropriate sections below) 1432 401 Sa1 In our opinion, the DPD generally fails to give The report is looking at directing most Links to SA/SEA Ms Kathryn Jukes Observations sufficient weight and attention to key sustainability new development to the DS1 to DS3 objectives and issues (Carter Jonas LLP) issues and objectives which are identified in the LDF settlements so that we can bring together are now being Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental employment and housing to reduce the addressed as issues Assessment. It is important that the Transport DPD need to travel and thus improve the DPD would have shows how it is compatible with SA objectives and sustainability. Doing this will also make dealt with are how it will contribute towards delivery of key better use of existing public transport progressed via the sustainability objectives. We advise that this should be services and encourage more walking Core Strategy, more fully evidenced to ensure that the DPD is robust and cycling. The Council's approach, in Allocations DPD, and and sound. protecting land for future transport Supplementary schemes and retaining some of the Planning Documents. schemes protected in the old local plans (in the more sustainable transport corridors), fits today's policy context. The Proposed Policy TDPD1 - Sustainable Communities and Transport - also aims to give weight to sustainability issues. How the Transport DPD shows its compatibility with the SA objectives and how it will contribute towards their delivery would have been more fully evidenced in the SA of the Transport DPD. 1435 445 Sa1 No Noted No specific action Mrs H Hook Other required 1437 459 Sa1 No comment Noted No specific action Unknown Other required (Albanwise Ltd) 1436 Mr Michael O'Connell (Entec UK Ltd) 1441 474 It is widely recognised that ports need to develop and Agreed. Both Hull and Goole Docks are Carry the general Associated British Observations expand to accommodate both existing trade and trade important in this context, as are links to approach of the Issues Ports growth, as well as advances in ship technology. It is them by rail and inland waterways and Options document also widely recognised that ports are an integral part particularly. The importance of promoting in progressing the LDF. 1440 of a sustainable transport and distribution network, development to achieve inter-modal Mr Duncan and that as a consequence they must play a freight transfer was acknowledged in Armstrong-Payne significant role in helping to reduce the environmental Proposed Policy TDPD2 (this is also (NAI Fuller Peiser) effects of freight distribution through the promotion of Policy TC4 in the Council's Second Local Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 220 short sea shipping and improving rail freight Transport Plan). connectivity. 1442 509 SA1 We didn't receive this document The Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic No action at this stage, W Buckle Other Environmental Assessment (SA/SEA) but take account of any (Wetwang Parish Scoping Report for the LDF was available further comments made Council) to view on the Council's website from by the Parish Council Spring 2006. The availability of as the issues within the Development Plan Documents was transport DPD issues highlighted in the letter sent out with the and options are further Transport DPD. Hard copies of the developed within the SA/SEA were not sent out as part of the Core Strategy, process as an initial Sustainability Allocations DPD, and Appraisal would have been be prepared Supplementary for the Preferred Options report of the Planning Documents Transport DPD and would have been consulted on at the Preferred Options stage. 397 683 There is a more general point on transport routes This issue would not be something to be This observation will be H B Heaton Observations related to geomorphology and possibly, biodiversity of safeguarded through the LDF, whereas referred to the relevant (East Yorkshire the country. Traversing something over 200 million Tourism LDF policies could perhaps make service teams of the RIGS Group) years of geological time from the Jurassic through the reference to such facilities. Land would Council. Cretaceous chalk of the Wolds, and the more recent not need to be safeguarded, as these deposits of the Vale of York and Holderness and a facilities would normally be provided very varied landscape, our roads pass over an area of within the highway boundary subject to considerable attractiveness. From some of the higher road safety issues. Incidentally, it should points the views demonstrate the geormorphology of be noted that lay-bys are already provided these geological times, as well as offering marvellous at the top of Arras and Garrowby Hills, as vistas. It seems to be a feature of our roads that well as on the A614 - all with good views places to stop and rest are few and far between. I can across the Vale of York. Picnic sites, with think of only three on the A1079, two on the A163 and tables and information boards can also be one on the A166. Might you consider, in your found close to these laybys on the A166 schemes including more such resting points located to at Wayrham and on the A614 at take advantage of view points, say at the top of Towthorpe. Garrowby Hill on A166. With a little minor landscaping and an information board or two you could earn the support of the Tourism and Environment parts of the Council; increasing visitor amenities, and adding achievements against the biodiversity of the Community plan. 833 715 Sa1 The lack of employment in the South Holderness Comments on the lack of employment in Consider issues of Ms H. Harvatt Observations area makes working outside the area a necessity. The the South Holderness area are noted. remoteness from Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 221 (Hollym Parish main concern is commuting costs are too high to The Council sought views on the future employment Council) make working worthwhile financially for many people, allocation of employment land in the town opportunities in the adding to social poverty in the area of Withernsea during the Employment Core Strategy and DPD consultation in August 2005. Also, Allocations DPD. the Council has prepared an Employment Land Review. This review tries to ensure that the future level of employment land provision will be sufficient to meet the needs of the East Riding economy and local residents. The results have fed into the LDF. 1452 799 Sa1. We should be looking to re-establish quick and In relation to rail routes closed in the This observation, which efficient travel links to settlements which grew as a 1960's and the re-establishment of quick appears to support result of railways and then were cut off by Beeching. and efficient travel links to settlements, public transport links to the LDF tackles this in several ways. One settlements (especially such scheme relates to the former rail), should be borne in Beverley to York railway line. Following a mind and the general report by the Countryside Agency approach set out in the (‘Railway Reopenings’ published in April Transport DPD Issues 2003), a number of former railway routes and Options in the Yorkshire and Humber region that consultation, including were considered to have potential for re- route protection, should opening were identified. One of these be continued. was the former route between Hull, Beverley and York, but the Hornsea and Withernsea routes were not considered to be viable options, so were not pursued further. Officers of the East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC), Hull City Council, City of York Council, Ryedale District Council, North Yorkshire County Council the Countryside Agency and the Yorkshire and Humber Assembly met to consider the issue and subsequently the authorities agreed to an initial feasibility study being undertaken by consultants (completed in March 2005). ERYC took a report Cllr Winifred I Observations to Cabinet in June 2005 with several Knight recommendations, including that vulnerable sections of the route be

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 222 protected in the East Riding Local Development Framework. The Issues and Options booklet of the Transport DPD therefore included a proposal to protect critically-important pieces of land, without which the longer term re-opening of the York to Beverley railway line and stations would not be possible We know that the government is pushing for services, This is acknowledged and the Council is Because national and but they can be discontinued at very short notice. heavily involved with Transport Operators regional policy can to support and develop public transport change and new services where possible. Much of this services or routes may operational work is beyond the scope of have to be introduced this DPD, however, as it involves no as a necessary physical works that may, for example, response to external need protecting from conflicting forces (such as, for development. It is exactly because example, Global government policies can change that the Warming or the lack of Council has proposed that critical pieces fuel resources) the of land should be protected to allow for general approach set the future reintroduction of a railway line out in the Transport between the East Riding and York. Even DPD Issues and though it is recognised that no such Options consultation, proposal is likely in the immediate future, including route it is necessary to protect certain tracts of protections, should be land to ensure that the only viable route continued. now available (because of earlier and possible future development) is still available if national policy does change - as it has in Scotland and Wales already (when most thought it probably never would). In this context, it is noted that the question of reinstating former railway routes in England appears to be becoming something of a national political issue.

1464 846 Priority must be given to avoiding development in Agree. Environmental issues are an The allocation of Stephanie Marriott Observations environmentally sensitive / important areas, most important factor when considering different land uses (Hornsea and especially on any land at risk of flooding. transport-related development. Planning within the LDF will District Chamber of Policy Statement 25 provides guidance consider Flood Risk as

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 223 Trade) for development in flood risk areas and a major issue. identifies those circumstances when Transport schemes transport infrastructure may be which, by and large, acceptable in certain flood risk areas. have to relate to or connect places that are already in existence, are less able to avoid, absolutely, areas that may be at occasional risk from flooding. Carry the general approach of the Issues and Options document in progressing the LDF. 564 1037 The Parish Council considered your Preferred Options Support noted Carry the general document relating to the development of transport approach of the Issues issues in the area. and Options document Mr Geoff Hall Support in progressing the LDF. (Woodmansey The Council agree with the proposals set out in the Parish Council) document. 1474 1239 Sa1. Global warming must be a consideration for These are noted and all agreed. The Support for less economical and affordable public transport systems. principle of Sustainability, on which the emphasis on road whole LDF concept is based, takes transport is noted. account of Global Warming and ways in Carry the general which it might be reduced. These include approach of the Issues there being less reliance on road and Options document transport and the effects that individual in progressing the LDF. Sue Atkins Observations developments could have on transport in (Middleton on the Less reliance on road transport. general. Where appropriate, studies Wolds Parish known as Transport Assessments, which Council) look at the likely impacts of developments Full consideration for future developments must and the ways these might be reduced, indicate dependencies and the wider impact on can be requested by the Council. transport and congestion 1502 1544 Sa1 The sustainability appraisal has severe There is no explanation as to why the No specific action J Burnett Observations problems with it, in that it looks at settlements with too conclusions are 'nonsensical.' In the required (East Cottingwith narrow a focus, and the conclusions on whether or not Planning context, sustainability is more to Parish Council) a settlement is sustainable are in some instances, do with global or national resources and nonsensical. Where people choose to live would the cumulative impacts of people living or perhaps be a better indication of whether a place is working in any particular location, than viable or not, It is ironic that in many instances, the with personal choice or personal wealth. Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 224 most popular places are, according to the planners, the least sustainable. Perhaps the scoring system needs to be re-assessed? 315 1548 The Theatres Trust is an Advisory Non-Departmental The East Riding's theatres are all in No specific action Public Body and a statutory consultee on planning settlements that have a good range of required applications that affect land on which there is a transport options and, as such, this theatre and was established by The Theatres Trust observation requires no action. Parking Act 1976 ‘to promote the better protection of theatres’. controls do not impact on evening This applies to all theatre buildings, old or new, and patronage of any East Riding theatres. regardless of whether or not they are still in use as theatres, in other uses, or disused. Our main objective is to safeguard theatre use, or the potential for such use, but we also provide expert advice on design, conservation, property and planning matters to theatre operators, local authorities and official bodies. Rose Freeman Observations (The Theatres As these DPDs are not directly relevant to the Trust’s Trust) work, we have no particular comment to make except regarding parking in the Transport DPD. With regard to theatres in general, the economics of theatres are reliant on audiences being able to get to the venue by public transport and by car, being able to park their cars and bikes, and being able to get home safely after a show. Controlled Parking Zones around theatres that extend to 11pm at night have serious implications for their economic viability. We would strongly urge any planning policies concerned with parking provision to consider the presence of theatres in the locality. Theatres are unlike other forms of the night time economy – they attract families, young people, disabled patrons, and older people who can be discouraged to attend theatres if the costs of travelling and parking at the theatre make the price tag of the evening out too high. Where restrictive regimes do occur we would urge the planning authority to allow for special conditions that can provide free parking to theatre patrons. 1482 1601 Sa 1 No Comment. Noted No specific action Mr James Durham Other required (Hull City Council) 694 1608 It might help if I say something first about how we Noted No specific action Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 225 propose to comment at this stage. The pre- required submission consultation stage, as set out in Regulation 25, is primarily an informal opportunity for local planning authorities to consult with the community and stakeholders during the preparation of preferred options. The GO at this stage has an advisory role rather than one of making formal representations. The following comments are based on an assessment of the general scope and content of the documents, including checking that the options are realistic in relation to national and regional policy and that there are no significant policy omissions. The comments are without prejudice to any formal GOYH representations at the Preferred Options and Submission stages. Mr A McIntyre Other (Government Office The PPS12 Companion Guide states that Regulation The advice of the Government Office is The results of this for Yorkshire and 25 involvement should be a continuous process rather noted. It is accepted that there will be consultation exercise the Humber) than one discrete exercise. It is possible that further further consultation as a result of this into Issues and Options consultation may be needed as a result of comments exercise and that it may include other (i.e.. this matrix) will be received before preferred options can be developed schemes or approaches to problems posted on the Council's and consulted on. website so that respondents can see how their comments have been dealt with and the results will also be reported to the Council Members. The responses will then inform the next stage of the process which will consist of the various elements of the DPD being taken forward through production of the Core Strategy, Allocations DPD, and Supplementary Planning Documents. 694 1610 Option Generation and Appraisal Mr A McIntyre Observations

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 226 (Government Office The LDF system requires the generation and The Issues and Options document listed Views will be used to for Yorkshire and evaluation of options and alternatives. The PPS 12 schemes and options available in the East develop Preferred the Humber) companion guide ‘Creating Local Development Riding and deliberately made the Options, when there will Frameworks’ (CLDF) makes clear (at section 8.3) that questions very open in order to elicit be further opportunity to Regulation 25 requires authorities to ensure responses from consultees that were not comment. documents are genuinely front-loaded by informally in any way unduly influenced by the involving communities in the development of issues Council. By not making the questions and alternative options and that authorities should 'open' we could have been accused of encourage a meaningful response based on a 'leading' respondents - which would have genuine choice of options. Options could be locational been unacceptable. or investment related. As it stands, the document doesn’t identify many See comment in the box above (no. The LDF could include choices, e.g. section 5 sets out proposals and poses 1608). Appendix 1 of the Issues and a section identifying the question ‘should we take forward a different Options document also listed schemes alternatives that were option?’ (Question T4). Similarly, section 8 is a series protected by existing local plans and not selected and of proposed policies with a single question following explained why they may, or may not, be explaining why that was each: any comments? For a document to be sound, I protected in future through the Transport so, for example, "What think it is unlikely to be possible to argue that there DPD. The role of the Transport DPD is to we left out…" are no real choices available. (See soundness test interpret the spatial needs of schemes vii). already selected through the LTP process and, where necessary, to protect land needed to ensure that such schemes can be implemented at some future date. Selection of the preferred approach should be Based on respondents' views, further Continue to develop progressed in comparison with the alternatives and options will be presented at the next options for the next with commitment growing at each stage. The decision stage, following which they would be stage of participation making process should be transparent with the refined even further, based on the within a relevant LDF alternatives expressed as early as possible. Clear comments received at that time. document (Core reasons should be given for the selection of the Strategy, Allocations preferred options, together with a précis of the DPD, and alternatives that were also considered (PPS12, Supplementary paragraph 4.12). The results of sustainability appraisal Planning Documents) (SA) usefully link in here SA should look at all options and act on consultees' including discounted ones. (See comments below responses, explaining about SA/SEA). why proposals are, or are not, being taken forward.

SA/SEA LPAs are required to submit a SA report - The Council has completed a Ensure that as the incorporating the requirements of the Strategic Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic SA/SEA is prepared it

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 227 Environmental Assessment Directive (EU Directive Environmental Assessment (SA/SEA) influences (and is 2001/42/EC) – identifying the process by which SA Scoping Report for the LDF. The Scoping influenced by) the has been carried, the baseline information used and Report was available on the 'website' in choice of Preferred the outcomes of the process (see PPS12, pages 22 – Spring 2006. A specific SA for the Options within relevant 25). There does not appear to any evidence in the Transport DPD would have been LDF documents. document that sustainability appraisal has been produced at the next Preferred Options carried out in relation to the DPD and its policies. You stage. should look to make an explicit reference to this in the document and link a summary of these into the plan given that the SA report is a fundamental part of the evidence base. It is also an important part of option generation and appraisal and so there is a link to the comments above. (Soundness test iii refers).

Evidence Base Strategies, policy directions and allocations should be The Evidence Base has been prepared In carrying the general founded on a robust and credible evidence base. and is available on the Council's website, approach of the Issues Assumptions should be set out clearly and should be but the role of the Transport DPD was and Options document supported by evidence and alternative options should particularly to interpret the Council's Local through the LDF, derive from the evidence base. (See soundness test Transport Plan 2. It is thus not quite like a ensure the preferred viii). Assumptions need to be identified and it should 'normal' DPD and did not attempt to approach is justified. be clear how they have affected the document. develop its own strategy or direction - nor should it. You refer to relevant evidence in the text, notably the This advice is noted and will be followed In developing a Local Transport Plan, but I think the document needs in the next stages of relevant LDF preferred approach, a to go further in identifying the key elements of the documents. All these studies are in hand clearer and more evidence base. For example, are you drawing on any and being developed in the context of detailed reference to traffic management studies, cycling studies or parking LTP2. the Evidence Base studies? What about accessibility planning, including should be made. locations and type of facilities availability and quality of public transport?

Linkages Further to the comments above, a DPD should be This is noted. References to the In the same way that clear how it relates to other plans, programmes and Community Strategy will be included clearer links with the strategies which will influence the delivery of policies where appropriate in subsequent stages Evidence Base need to and proposals in the plan (soundness test iv (a)). The of the process. be demonstrated when LTP is of course particularly relevant given the nature choosing Preferred of the DPD but there may be others? You will need to Options, so too do set out how the DPD’s policies and proposals deliver linkages with other components of the Community Strategy and how the specific plans.

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 228 objectives of the Community Strategy relate the plan (soundness test v).

Cross-Boundary Issues I note the document refers in section 5 to the North This is noted. Officers of ERYC and Hull Ensure that any cross- Hull Park and Ride site and access which is being CC meet to discuss such matters in order boundary issues are promoted by Hull City Council. To comply with to avoid any inconsistency. Similarly, agreed and justified soundness test vi you will need to be clear about any liaison takes place with other authorities prior to their further cross-boundary issues which are relevant and how and joint studies have been undertaken development through these are going to be addressed. For example, are on relevant projects, for example the Hull the LDF. you undertaking any joint studies to try to ensure to Beverley to York railway route. consistency where there are overlaps with another authority’s relevant plans (e.g., with Hull)? You should explain, where necessary, any perceived inconsistencies. Implementation and Monitoring You will need to develop clear mechanisms for These comments are noted, but not all Ensure that any longer implementation and monitoring and think more about proposals mentioned in the Issues and term transport deliverability as you progress the document towards a Options paper or in existing plans would proposals that require pre-submission draft. The PPS 12 Companion Guide be considered deliverable at the present interim protection from (section 8.4) states that preferred options time, or have clear mechanisms for conflicting development documents/pre-submission drafts must propose delivery. They may be longer term are clearly identified deliverable options that are credible in terms of concepts that still need further work but and their justification resources likely to be available to implement them which, if not protected from conflicting set out. with clear mechanisms for delivery. development in the meantime, may be impossible to carry out in the future due to routes being severed, or completely obliterated, by development. This would apply to some road and rail schemes in particular and the requirement to protect them is in line with PPG13 and the Regional Spatial Strategy. For example, the document needs to establish targets Targets and milestones relating to the Make it clear, in and milestones relating to the delivery of policies and spatial issues dealt with by this DPD are subsequent stages of be clearer about how these are to be measured and embodied in LTP2. However, we do the LDF, where linked to the production of the AMR. Not only delivery need to develop targets in the LDF that relevant targets and mechanisms but timescales for implementation for the are consistent with those in the LTP. milestones by which the policies should be identified and built in where effects of policies can possible. It also should be clear who is intended to be measured, may be implement each policy. Where possible, there should found. be evidence of buy-in of the policies by other

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 229 stakeholders or authority departments. If actions are required to implement policy outside the direct control Noted. Of the four policies in the Issues of your authority there should be evidence of the and Options document, Policy TDPD1 necessary commitment from the relevant organisation. could have indicators and targets set You should adopt a realistic approach to what can be relating to the criteria utilised for the implemented over the plan period to avoid a risk of Housing Site Selection Methodology and blight or false expectations (which, I note from RSS. paragraph 5.2 is up to 2021). Saved Policies Section 5 deals with transport schemes protected in Noted Continue with the four Local Plans covering the East Riding area procedures that are and Appendix 1 indicates whether protection is already in hand to save proposed to be retained in the Transport DPD. As you relevant old-style will know, under the 2004 Act, unless expressly development plans replaced by a new policy, existing policies in an beyond the initial 3-year adopted local plan are saved for 3 years from the date period of commencement of Section 38 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 on 28th September 2004 or from the date the plan was adopted or approved, where later. The Secretary of State may make a direction to save Noted Continue with specified policies beyond the 3 year period. The procedures that are Department for Communities and Local Government already in hand to save (DCLG) has now issued a Protocol which sets out relevant old-style how to make requests to save adopted local plan development plans policies and how the government will respond to them. beyond the initial 3-year You will need to consider this in taking forward your period LDF, including the Transport DPD. Proposals Map Appendix 2 shows the preferred routes and locations Noted Amend the Proposals of new transport schemes proposed for protection. Maps within You will need to consider whether the existing subsequent stages of Proposals Maps will need to be updated to the LDF so that they incorporate other elements in or changes produced by can be consulted upon the policies and proposals of the DPD. If the once more proposals map needs updating this should be consulted on at Preferred Options stage to ensure soundness. (See paragraphs 2.20-2.27 and Annex A of PPS12). 1511 1667 Sa1 A restrictive approach to development in non- Support noted. The strategy set out in the Carry the general Rural Service Centres is in my opinion not feasible; JSP, which is the LDF's interim core approach of the Issues

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 230 surely it makes more sense to infill build in established strategy, takes this into account and as a and Options document communities as opposed to building on good farming result, will concentrate future through future land, a good example of this is the ongoing development in the service centres rather development of the development in Snaith. With regard to Principle Towns than rural areas. LDF. and Towns we have already set the precedent with Out of Town Shopping, Supermarkets etc all requiring the use of cars. Mr Peter Lacy Observations I feel that there will always be areas which will lend themselves more suitably to development than any other use i.e. infill 'bad land' small plots etc. This question is not easily answered, as over the last couple of decades the population has been encouraged to travel further a field for work, if in another couple of decades the housing requirements will change and smaller developments (single houses) be viewed differently. 1450 1686 Sa 1 Not at this time Noted No specific action required Mrs Val Wood Other (Anlaby with Anlaby Common Parish Council) 1517 1721 We operate two car dealerships and a petrol station at Full consultation on HGV parking was No speciific further Junction 36, Goole. We are becoming increasingly undertaken when preparing the Freight action required, but concerned about the lack of adequate facilities for Strategy in LTP2, with over 100 freight refer these comments Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV's) in the area. We have operators, the Road Haulage Association to the relevant officer noticed a considerable increase in the volume of and other Freight Transport bodies within the authority so HGV's over the last few years, and this increase will consulted . Both public and private that he is aware of no doubt continue with the developments due to facilities were identified and the Council is them and can take any happen at Centre Port. This is no doubt a good thing of the view that they provide an adequate appropriate action. for Goole and we support it, however we believe that level of HGV parking in the East Riding. proper provision should be made in the Transport Development Plan to cater for the needs of the professional HGV driver. Mr Joseph Observations The main problem is a lack of HGV parking, toilet, Richardson wash room and catering facilities for the drivers, resulting in the following problems. (Jos Richardson & Inappropriate parking at all times of day and night Son Ltd) causing congestion, disruption and safety concerns to other motorists Litter and in some cases drivers urinating in Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 231 inappropriate places Restricting the effective trade of retail businesses at Junction 36 (Hotel, Fast Food Outlet, Petrol Station and Car Dealerships) We certainly experience this problem on our site and I am aware that other places in Goole do also, for example the Rawcliffe Road and Larsen Park Industrial Estates, as well as the surrounding areas such as Lidice Road, Larsen Road and Anderson Road. There are two existing overnight parking sites (Rawcliffe Road and Anderson Road), but neither are of sufficient size or standard to alleviate the problem. We respectfully ask for our comments to be considered with regards to the East Riding Transport Development Plan, and strongly suggest provision be made on the outskirts of Goole for a large scale modern 24 hour Lorry Park with re-fuelling capability as well as parking, toilet / washroom and catering facilities. 1519 1767 We have undertaken a planning and transport review The Agency's general support is Carry the general of the documents in accordance with our requirements welcomed. approach of the Issues and aims. This letter provides an overall response to and Options document the general issues of interest to the Agency, whilst the through future attached completed comments form (Annex A) development of the provides specific responses to the questions raised by LDF. the Council with regard to the Transport Issues & Options DPD. Overall the Agency welcomes the provisions of this document, in particular the reinforcement of detailed policies contained within other documents and provision of principles on how to use 'planning gain' to improve the transport network as appropriate. Ms Claire Minett Observations The document states that a separate Generic DC Consultation with the Agency, amongst Ensure consultation (Highways Agency) document will provide the details of the application of others, will be undertaken when the with the agency when S(106) obligations and also cover the details of the generic development control policies are generic development use of Transport Assessments and Travel Plans for prepared in the Core Strategy and control policies are new development. We would welcome consultation on guidance prepared within Supplementary prepared within the this as and when the document is produced. In Planning Documents Core Strategy, and particular we welcome the use of planning obligations guidance prepared to secure commuted sums in order that appropriate within Supplementary

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 232 development schemes can contribute to larger Planning Documents. schemes that could not be afforded by individual schemes. The Agency considers however, that caution should be applied where development is to be 'encouraged' in deprived areas, by the proposed lowering of the obligation requirements in such areas. Sustainability considerations should still be considered as a priority. As with the Smaller Settlements document, careful The balance between car parking and the Ensure car parking consideration is required when applying parking wish to not undermine public transport is standards are in line standards so as not to encourage car use and at the noted. with RSS and other expense of public transport, and we welcome the higher level guidelines. Council's recognition of the need to locate development where it is accessible by existing transport networks and where it will minimise the need to travel. This is especially important in the East Riding, where one in five homes do not have access to a car. < Note - Responses to the questionnaire are recorded under Consultee Graham Titchener (No. 554) -ERYC> 554 1783 Sa1 No Comment Noted No specific action Mr Graham Other required Titchener (Highways Agency) 1518 Mr Ashley Stratford (Halcrow Group Ltd) 1489 1801 The HOSM Parish Plan (copy enclosed) produced The issues mentioned in the Parish Plan Carry the general with the co-operation of the Parish Plan Advisory document relate mainly to operational and approach of the Issues Committee (PPAC) has been drawn up after maintenace issue, which were not in the and Options document extensive Public Consultation and the PPAC would remit of the DPD. However, some traffic through future wish to ensure that its proposals are taken into reduction through the village will hopefully development of the account in any transport policies, which are currently be achieved as a result of the overall LDF, and forward a under consideration. In particular your attention is approach of the LDF in attempting to cut copy of the Parish Plan drawn to the concerns about footpaths and traffic traffic growth. It may be useful to forward to relevant officers through the village. a copy of the Parish Plan to relevant within the Council to officers in other departments so that they remind them of the are reminded of the Parish's concerns. Parish's concerns. NC Evans Observations Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 233 (Holme on Spalding Moor Parish Plan Advisory Committee) 1520 1815 Sa1 Global warming should be considered when Sustainability is the underlying principle of No specific action looking at increased vehicle movements and vehicles the whole LDF required stuck in traffic jams Mr John Ledger Observations 1466 1824 No comments Noted No specific action required Mr John Handley Other (Aldbrough Parish Council) 970 1833 Sa1 Given the significant contribution made by road Noted. This is the purpose of the SA/SEA Ensure that the and other transport to greenhouse gas emissions, the Sustainability Appraisal SA/SEA should undertake a detailed assessment of / Strategic the contribution each Transport DPD policy makes to Environmental reducing such emissions. Where the result of a given Assessment influences policy would be to maintain or increase the current the choice of preferred level of emissions, the SA/SEA should fully develop options in subsequent alternatives to these policies and compare their stages of the LDF. performance with respect to a range of social, economic and environmental criteria, giving significant weight to policy alternatives that lead to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Mr Martin Kerby Observations (RSPB Northern England Region) 391 1834 At the Planning and Finance Standing Committee held This is noted and is disappointing. It is In consulting on the on 22 November 2006, Members discussed the above also interesting to see that the Town next stages of the LDF, items and unanimously agreed that they had no wish Council considers the issues and options stress that any view is to complete the consultation questionnaires. Members document to be prescriptive and a fait welcome on the did however RESOLVE to instruct the Clerk to state to accompli when the process is only in mid- Preferred Approach, or the ERYC that it would be more useful and give the stream. In our view we have to start on any alternative Town Council more involvement and influence in the somewhere and past experience has approach not decision making process if they could be involved shown that respondents normally prefer to mentioned in that from the start of the process rather than be consulted have something to comment on, rather document. Mrs Sarah J. Observations on documents which have already been written and than the 'blank sheet of paper' approach, Moody where all decisions appear to be a 'fait accompli'. which often leads to there being no (Market Weighton a lengthy, time-limited process. 1521 1849 Sa1 All the factors you have mentioned in this It is not agreed that most of the document Strengthen references document are centred around road transport this must was centred on road transport. Rail, in to freight movement at not be looked at in isolation, it is important that the particular, is mentioned - as are the next stages of the prime objectives of any plan are:- waterways. It is agreed however, that LDF - especially as an there need to be more examples on alternative to road freight movement and alternatives to its transport of goods Mr Douglas E Observations To minimise the need to travel movements by road. Kendall (North Cave Parish Where travel is necessary, to provide for the safe Council) speedy and efficient movement of people and goods in and out of town centres, prime holiday destinations and major employment sites. Enable the more environmentally friendly delivery of freight movements. To widen the consultation process to allow local people to influence decisions on transport development in line with the governments aims. Many of these aims can not be met unless incorporated in the overarching Local Development Framework. 1472 1922 Sa1 When considering land for transport schemes, The impacts of development of any sort Refer to nature the nature conservation value of the area should be on nature conservation are understood conservation in the next given high importance. Commercial developments and will be borne in mind. Due to their stages of the LDF. Jennifer Aird Observations often require new roads and transport links, which can linear nature, transport routes often (East Riding of soon lead to further commercial development. Such provide excellent corridors for wildlife as Yorkshire & development brings noise pollution, air pollution and well as people and goods Kingston Upon Hull the destruction of habitats. Unspoilt areas can soon Joint Local Access be lost, if they are not given sufficient protection or a Forum) wide enough berth. Sites such as the proposed nature reserve at Oakhill, near Goole, are a valuable resource to deprived areas, bringing fresh-air, tranquillity and exercise to those most in need of it. 484 1937 Sa1 The transport needs of smaller settlements not These needs are acknowledged and the Continue to develop included in the development areas. LDF will do its best to address them. policies that are appropriate to all parts of the East Riding. Mrs Jean Mayland Observations (Barmston & Fraisthorpe Parish Council) Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 235 1491 1938 As a keen cyclist it is pleasing to see such a Cycling is an important mode of travel and Support for cycling prominent part given to this environmentally friendly will continue to be acknowledged as such. noted. Carry this form of transport. Are members and officials really so The ERYC already operates schemes to support forward to keen to change people's habits from motoring to minimise car travel, including future stages of the cycling? If so will they continue to give themselves a inducements to use bicycles, but some LDF. Mr David Cook Observations positive inducement to travel high mileages in their car travel has to be undertaken by officers (Cottingham Parish cars by having such generous travel allowances? and councillors due to the nature of the Council) East Riding area (and consequently has to be paid for reasonably). 313 1939 For environment and social reasons the aim of the Noted current government is to reduce road traffic. The Conservatives have announced that they have similar objectives. In order to achieve these aims, the requirements of smaller settlements such as ours are similar to those of everyone else; there are concerns about freight and about private vehicles. Mrs S. Mason Observations (Eastrington Parish a) Freight Council) The amount of freight carried on our roads continues This is noted and agreed. There is some Strengthen references to increase. The only ways to change this are to evidence that retailers and hauliers are to freight movement at persuade businesses to reduce the need to transport beginning to switch some movements to the next stage - their goods such long distances (e.g. retailers to rail. especially as an change their central buying and warehousing policies) alternative to road or transferring goods to other modes of transport, transport of goods. primarily rail.

For local deliveries it would be preferable for smaller Agreed, but the ERYC cannot directly Bear in mind the size of vehicles to be used whenever possible. This would influence a carrier's choice of vehicle size. goods delivery vehicles benefit the environment and road safety as well as in Traffic Management reducing damage to minor roads (which are not built work and keep controls to carry large vehicles). under view.

b) Private vehicles / public transport

Under no circumstances should any further These sentiments are agreed and the Continue to work with deterioration in public transport services be allowed in ERYC does what it can to maintain strong the bus and rail rural areas. Indeed, even as matters presently stand public transport services throughout the companies and the there is a need for improvements. As and example, East Riding. government, we have a railway station but on weekdays only two particularly to trains a day stop in one direction and three in the encourage more

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 236 other (at weekends it is even less). Car parking frequent rail services facilities are poor. The service is little used because it where they could be does not fit in with the public's transport requirements. better, especially at It will only do so if stopping trains are increased to five rural stations - on the or six a day in both directions. Snaith branch line for example.

If cars are to be taken off the roads it is essential that a vastly improved public transport system (bus, train or both) is provided first. This is also a requirement for those older people who are no longer able to drive and whose numbers are continuing to increase. Much of what is said above is outside the responsibility of ERYC. Nevertheless the Council should be mindful of the issues. Some of them impinge on the TDP as follows;-

a) Questions T1 - T4 The railway system is reaching its full capacity . If, as Support for rail (both passenger and Strengthen references seems inevitable, more freight is to be carried by rail freight) is noted. It is understood that for to rail freight movement and local transport services are improved by the now there is sufficient capacity on those within the LDF - provision of more 'stopping' trains, there will be a need routes for foreseen growth, though with especially as an for extra railway tracks alongside existing ones. expected large scale increases in freight alternative to the road Provision should be made for at least one extra track from Hull docks (especially coal imports transport of goods. on the Hull / Leeds / Doncaster lines in the East and perhaps more containers), this Riding. situation could change. It is an issue that is being investigated as part of the current 'Yorkshire & Humber Route Utilisation Strategy' being led by Network Rail to address problems that may occur on the railway network up to 2017. The addition of extra lines to existing routes is an operational decision for Network Rail and beyond the direct scope of the LDF. On the Hull to Gilberdyke leg of the route west from Hull, it is unlikely that this would need any land safeguarding, as the route formerly had four tracks as far as Gilberdyke Junction 483 1948 Jenny Poxon Observations Rural Transport

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 237 (Yorkshire and It is perhaps surprising that there is little reference or Noted, though not entirely agreed. One of Strengthen references Humber Assembly) mention of rural transport policies. Policy T8 of draft the most ambitious suggestions is to to rural transport within RSS builds on current RSS and states that the Region protect a route for a new rural railway that the LDF. should ensure that transport contributes to addressing would directly address this issue. The the economic and social problems in rural and coastal provision of public transport services, or areas reflecting geographical isolation and their intensification, is an operational remoteness of Local Service Centres and other rural issue and the Council works hard with communities from Regional Centres and the strategic Public Transport providers to serve its transport networks as well as population sparsity and large rural area as well as it possibly can, dispersal. given the funding available. The decision to allow slightly increased parking provision on housing developments in the rural areas is also, in a sense, a direct response to this issue due to the difficulties faced in providing an all- encompassing public transport service in the enormous rural area that is the East Riding. Public Transport The Assembly feels that there is a need for a greater Noted emphasis to be placed on public transport, as reducing car use is a key theme of current and draft RSS. This is explored further in policies T2 and T3 of current RSS and YH8 C, T1, and T3 of draft RSS. 1523 1963 Sa1 No comment Noted No specific action required Julie Abraham Other 427 1977 Sa1 No comment Noted No specific action required Mrs M. Barker Other (North Ferriby Parish Council) 448 1981 The Council holds the following issues as being important to Howden; Ms Liz Charnock Observations (Howden Town the need for a cycle track from Howden to Goole; LTP2 (Annex E) lists schemes to improve Implement LTP2 Council) cycle facilities between Howden town programme of centre and Boothferry Bridge improvements, which do not need land to be safeguarded for their construction. Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 238 the designation of land near Howden Railway Station Car parking at Howden Station has Continue to investigate for possible future development as a car park; already been improved. additional station car parking at Howden Station with the various rail agencies - notably Network Rail, Hull Trains and Transpennine Express.

all necessary measures to restrict HGV movements in HGV controls are already kept under No specific action the town centre review and will continue to be so. required. 1528 2006 Sa1 Current development leading towards fuel cell Congestion would still be an issue, albeit Continue to follow technology (green) so in 20 yrs there should be far there may be less pollution as a result of higher level guidance less environmental arguments against car use, and so alternative engine technology. Measures on the issue of traffic current plans should take increase in road traffic into to reduce car use and thus congestion will growth and how we account still be needed - even with fuel cells. should encourage alternatives to the private car, in particular, and to other road transport such as freight. Mr Ian Pitcher Observations (Melbourne Parish Council)

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 239 APPENDIX 2

List of transport schemes not being safeguarded through the LDF

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 240 Why considered Scheme Justification for discounting scheme from the LDF Description Saved East A165 Barmston The land required is in the open countryside which is largely Yorkshire Borough Bends road protected from development. We are unlikely to bring this Wide Local Plan realignment forward in the future as there is no clear advantage for this policy TM2 scheme over alternative measures, which may also achieve the same benefit if needed, without the need to protect land. Funding unlikely to be available for implementing the scheme in the future. Saved East Burton Agnes The land required is in the open countryside which is largely Yorkshire Borough southern bypass protected from development. We are unlikely to bring this Wide Local Plan forward in the future as there is no clear advantage for this policy TM2 scheme over alternative measures, which may also achieve the same benefit if needed, without the need to protect land. Funding unlikely to be available for implementing the scheme in the future. Saved East A614 Carnaby to The land required is in the open countryside which is largely Yorkshire Borough Bessingby road protected from development. We are unlikely to bring this Wide Local Plan realignment forward in the future as there is no clear advantage for this policy TM2 scheme over alternative measures, which may also achieve the same benefit if needed, without the need to protect land. A 40Mph speed limit reduction on this stretch of road is anticipated to deliver safety benefits reducing the need for this scheme. Funding unlikely to be available for implementing the scheme in the future. Saved East A614 Kirkburn The land required is in the open countryside which is largely Yorkshire Borough Bends road protected from development. We are unlikely to bring this Wide Local Plan realignment forward in the future as there is no clear advantage for this policy TM2 scheme over alternative measures, which may also achieve the same benefit if needed, without the need to protect land. Funding unlikely to be available for implementing the scheme in the future. Saved East Middleton-on-the- We are unlikely to bring this forward in the future as there is no Yorkshire Borough Wolds bypass clear advantage for this scheme over alternative measures, Wide Local Plan which may also achieve the same benefit if needed, without the policy TM2 need to protect land. Funding unlikely to be available for implementing the scheme in the future. Saved East A614 Ruston Parva The land required is in the open countryside which is largely Yorkshire Borough Crossroads protected from development. We are unlikely to bring this Wide Local Plan forward in the future as there is no clear advantage for this policy TM2 scheme over alternative measures, which may also achieve the same benefit if needed, without the need to protect land. Funding unlikely to be available for implementing the scheme in the future. Saved Beverley A63 Melton grade Completed scheme Borough Local Plan separated junction Policy T2 Saved Beverley A1079 Bishop We are unlikely to bring this forward in the future as there is no Borough Local Plan Burton bypass clear advantage for this scheme over alternative measures, Policy T2 which may also achieve the some benefit if needed, without the need to protect land. Funding unlikely to be available for implementation of the scheme in the future. Saved Beverley A164 Figham link The western end has partially been constructed alongside new Borough Local Plan road- relief road to housing development. This scheme has been superseded by Policy T2 take traffic away the Beverley Integrated Transport Plan, including a Southern from the town bypass which better performs the same function by taking traffic centre away from the whole urban area of the town and not just the town centre. As part of the Integrated Transport Plan, the scheme will deliver additional benefits through provision of a park and ride facility and additional traffic management and environmental improvements to the town centre. Saved Beverley North East Scheme was constructed alongside new housing development.

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 241 Borough Local Plan Beverley bypass Policy T2 Saved Beverley North West A new roundabout constructed at the junction of the Malton Borough Local Plan Beverley bypass Road and Dog Kennel Lane has reduced the need for this Policy T3 scheme by easing the movement of traffic between these roads, which together act as part of the town’s outer ring road. There may, however, be justification to require the provision of a short section of the route linking Grange Way/Driffield Road roundabout with the Malton Road alongside new housing development which may come forward to the north of Molescroft. This would help to improve the environmental quality of the Village centre through provision of a route allowing traffic to bypass centre. Saved Beverley A1034 South Cave Completed scheme. Borough Local Plan – Station Road/Low Policy T2 Drewton. Removal of old railway bridge/road realignment Saved Beverley A164 Victoria The land required is within the highway boundary and therefore Borough Local Plan Road, Beverley- does not need protecting from development. We are unlikely to Policy T2 road widening bring this forward this scheme in the future. Saved Beverley Champney Road, The land required is within the highway boundary and therefore Borough Local Plan Beverley- does not need protecting from development. Policy T3 Accommodate Two Way traffic Saved Beverley Willerby guided bus We are unlikely to bring this forward in the future as there is no Borough Local Plan route clear advantage for this scheme over alternative measures, Policy T3 which may also achieve the same benefit if needed, without the need to protect land. Saved Boothferry A161 Goole stage Since a new Dutch river bridge has been constructed Borough Local Plan II Bypass (4 accommodating two way traffic, there is now a reduced need for Policy T3a alternative routes) this bypass scheme. We are therefore unlikely to bring it forward in the future. Funding unlikely to be available for implementing the scheme in the future. Saved Boothferry A161 Goole We are unlikely to bring this forward in the future as there is no Borough Local Plan Fields/Lodge Farm clear advantage for this scheme over alternative measures, Policy T4g road and footway which may also achieve the same benefit if needed, without the realignment need to protect land. Funding unlikely to be available for implementing the scheme in the future. Saved Boothferry A614 Howden to i, Scheme completed Borough Local Plan Bridlington Policy T3b i, ii, iii, & i, Cavil bends road ii, Scheme completed iv realignment ii, Chestnut Farm iii, Scheme completed road realignment iii, Welham Bridge iv, Road safety and maintenance scheme implemented Farm to Sikes Farm road realignment iv, New Inn to Hilltop Grange, Holme upon Spalding Moor road realignment

Saved Boothferry A63 Western We are unlikely to bring this forward in the future as there is no Borough Local Plan diversion route at clear advantage for implementing this scheme. Existing traffic to Policy T4b Howden the A63 from the M62 is diverted along the B1228, which acts as a suitable alternative route to the diversion scheme. Saved Boothferry Newport- Canal No scheme details for comment. Borough Local Plan Side East, turning

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 242 Policy T4h head Saved Boothferry Coniston Way to It would attract traffic through residential streets in North Goole. Borough Local Plan south of the railway There are unresolved issues relating to building an underpass Policy T5 line- Underpass within a high flood risk zone. We are unlikely to bring this scheme. forward in the future as there is no clear advantage for this scheme over alternative measures, which may also achieve the same benefit if needed, without the need to protect land. Saved Holderness B1239 Bilton Bridge renewal scheme carried out which supersedes this District Wide Local (Wyton) Holmes scheme, which would bring little additional benefit. Plan bridge realignment Saved Holderness A1033 Hedon The land required is in the open countryside which is largely District Wide Local bypass to Saltend protected from development. We are unlikely to bring this Plan roundabout forward in the future. conversion to dual carriageway Saved Holderness A1033 (trunk road) Completed scheme District Wide Local Hedon Road Plan conversion to dual carriageway (stage ii) Saved Holderness A1033 Keyingham We are unlikely to bring this forward in the future as there is no District Wide Local bypass clear advantage for this scheme over alternative measures, Plan Policy Key2 & which may also achieve the same benefit if needed, without the 3 need to protect land. Funding unlikely to be available for implementing the scheme in the future. Saved Holderness B1238 Bilton, Lime No scheme details for comment. District Wide Local Tree Avenue to Plan Wyton Bar. Realign and improve carriageway. Saved Holderness Ganstead Lane to The benefits of this scheme mainly relate to City of Hull and District Wide Local Hedon Road Hull City Council were happy that the scheme is mostly Plan eastern relief road protected from development by being in the open countryside within the East Riding. The scheme is not currently being actively pursued by the City Council. Funding unlikely to be available for implementing the scheme in the future. Saved Holderness Hedon Road- Hull City Council do not anticipate any land to be required within District Wide Local Saltend to Hull City the East Riding for this scheme. Plan Centre bus priority scheme. Saved Holderness Hornsea, No scheme details for comment. District Wide Local improvement of Plan access to seafront Consultation Goole multi modal The landowner cannot guarantee that this scheme will be responses terminal delivered, and may instead pursue non-transport related development on the site. Consultation A link between the The scheme which is otherwise protected by being in the open response existing Beverley countryside could be brought forward with possible new North Eastern development. Bypass and the B1248 Consultation Cottingham The scheme which is otherwise protected by being in the open response Southern Bypass countryside can be brought forward with possible new development. Consultation Howden Railway Completed scheme response Station - Car Park extension

Consultation New junction on The scheme is protected through being in the open countryside. response the A614 at the Ruston Parva crossroads

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 243

Transport Development Plan Document Background Report April 2010 244